It ain’t me, it ain’t me

The Vietnam War has been done in so many ways. From the passive interests of film and books, to agency-laden video and tabletop games. Fire in the Lake takes a fairly novel approach in not tackling the on-the-ground battles between the various factions involved. It adds a safety layer of abstraction by making the game function at the operational level. There are plenty of small differences to previous games, but those of you familiar with the way COIN games work will feel instantly at home with the concepts of control and support/opposition, which represent the political landscape of the conflict.

I love the way control and support work. It’s such a simple concept, but one which comes with multiple layers of nuance. You might think that the faction with control of a region or city would also have the local population in their pocket, but it’s not the case. It’s quite possible for the city to be controlled by the Counter-Insurgents (in this case the US and ARVN), but the VC and NVA’s actions mean that the populace there actively opposes that control. It’s a hallmark of COIN design, and it leads to some really tricky decisions to make. Taking a sub-optimal turn just to wrest control from someone feels like a punch in the guts, but sometimes you’ve just got to take your lumps.

One of the things I especially like about Fire in the Lake is the choice of playing the game in short, medium, or long scenarios. COIN games can be daunting things to learn, and the first game can really drag until the players all understand not only what they’re doing, but why. The why is so, so important, and sometimes difficult to convey. Being able to set up a short game, rattle through it in a couple of hours, and have everyone walk away from the table knowing what to do next time, is great.

It’s time to stop. Hey, what’s that sound?

I mentioned the differences above, and this is the point where I’d be excitedly rambling if you were sat in front of me, like the fervent nerd I am. We’ve got Coup rounds now instead of Propaganda rounds, which represent checkpoints in the game. Coups are essentially the same thing, but each coup brings a new RVN leader who stays in play – with their own ongoing effects – until the next coup. Coups also bring Monsoons, which means that the turn immediately prior to a Coup (you can always see the upcoming card in COIN games) has some restrictions. No sweeps, and restricted airlifts and airstrikes mean that there’s very little pre-coup preparation for players, and I like it.

The VC and NVA factions can create tunnelled bases which act in the same way as regular bases, but are much more difficult to remove. It’s a nice thematic touch, mirroring the tunnels the Viet Cong used during the conflict to not only hide during the days but also acted as supply routes, hospitals and caches for food and weapons. Another new touch is the introduction of Pivotal Event cards. Each faction has its own Pivotal Event which can have powerful impacts on the game state but require that certain pre-requisites are made first. Like spicy chillies just waiting to be thrown into the soup pot to cause havoc.

I nearly forgot to mention the Ho Chi Minh trail too, which represents the north-to-south trail in Vietnam. It’s a track which shows a value, which then determines how many troops the NVA can Rally. Actions can degrade the trail, reducing its efficiency. It’s a nice touch which represents something that doesn’t need to be on the map itself.

Another great thematic touch is the sort of forced symbiosis between the US and ARVN players. The US doesn’t have its own resources in the game, despite needing them for certain actions. Luckily they can just use the ARVN’s instead! This comes with its own restriction in the form of the Econ marker on the score track, meaning that the US can only spend the surplus above that marker. And this is what the COIN series do so well. They weave in forced cooperation between players who each want to win, meaning that these aren’t head-down, navel-gazing exercises in raw strategy. There’s an inherent layer of player interactions, never more evident than when a player desperately tries to steer someone else into a decision which doesn’t scupper their own plans.

War, children, it’s just a shot away

This is the awkward part of the review, because this is where I say “You know what – maybe Fire in the Lake isn’t for you”. I think it’s an amazing game, but I also acknowledge that it’s a deep game, and a complex game. Reading through the rules and setting the game up for the first time gave me flashbacks to when I tried to learn Gandhi for the first time. You can’t learn how to play Fire in the Lake from the rulebook, which sounds ridiculous, but it’s true. The rulebook is more like a technical manual. Trying to play a COIN game from the rulebook is like learning to drive with a Haynes manual. Just because you know the inner workings of a Ford Cortina doesn’t mean you know how to drive one, and the same goes for COIN.

Your friend in learning COIN, or in this weird analogy, your driving instructor, is the Playbook that comes in the box. The playbook walks you through some turns, explaining to you what’s going on, who’s doing what, and why. It’s vitally important to add this layer of context and application to the actions on offer. The thing is, even with that playbook, there’s no denying that Fire in the Lake is still a tricky game. There are a lot of small things that only go to reinforce my assertion that Cuba Libre is the de facto shallow end of the COIN swimming pool. On the giant Vietnam map you’ve got neighbouring countries with their own conditions for who can stay for how long. You provinces with 0 population, meaning securing them does nothing for your win condition. Lines of Communication bisect provinces, but despite looking like borders, they’re spaces you can occupy. The sheer size of the map, especially when compared to Cuba Libre’s board, makes it more difficult to read the map state at a glance.

None of this is to say that Fire in the Lake is bad in any way. Far from it, it’s an exceptional game. It’s just a very dense game, and learning it as your first COIN game may feel like hacking away at the jungle with a butter knife. If any of the points I raised above made you slightly more waterproof with an involuntary butt clench, head for Cuba Libre first.

Final thoughts

Despite my warning shots in the previous section, I’ve got to say that Fire in the Lake is a wonderful game. The COIN games are fascinating to me, because you can see the genealogical traits passed down through the games. I haven’t played all of them yet, but the Lines of Communication are similar to the railways in Gandhi. The NVA leaders are like the British Viceroys in the same game. You still get those lovely player aid cards which list not only the choices for your Operations and Special Activities, but also the win conditions for each player. They feel like menus at a restaurant, and there’s something I can’t quite put my finger on which makes me enjoy using them. It’s a bit like ordering at said restaurant – “Oh waiter, yes, I’ll take a main course of Patrol, with Advise for dessert, thank you”.

If you’re a fan of historical games set during the Vietnam war, then this really is the game for you. I love it when games take on this operational level of detail, instead of dealing with the actual conflict on the battlefield. Truthfully, a part of that is because I know about some of the horrors of war that happened there. That sort of thing is ever-present in the back of my mind when I play a game which tries to simulate a real-life conflict. But even if you took the theme away from the game and replaced it with something fantastical or futuristic, the card-drive gameplay and tidal shifts of power across the board are just a lot of fun.

There is a Non-Player/solo mode which plays a mean game, but it’s also pretty heavy lifting on your part as the NP player. COIN came into its own with simple solo in Gandhi, BUT, there is a new NP method available with the Tru’ng Bot, which is available to buy separately. Unfortunately, I haven’t used it myself, but from what I’ve read and watched, it sounds great. Fire in the Lake just packs so much in the box, it’s a game you could play over and over, and still have a riot each time. The different scenarios, the different ways to play it with the different factions, and the sheer variety of some of the situations you’ll encounter, mean you can get a lot of hours from your purchase. It’d be remiss of me to not mention that the long scenarios really can be looooong (4+ hours), but in the same breath, if a Coup card comes out and you’re setup just right, that 6 hour game just got chopped to a 2 hour one. I think the medium scenario is the best, although your mileage may vary.

Thematic, atmospheric, and beautifully designed. Fire in the Lake is a complex, table-filling beast which needs taming, but rewards you for your investment.

Review copy provided by GMT Games. Thoughts and opinions are my own.

Fire in the Lake (2014)

Designers: Mark Herman, Volko Ruhnke
Publisher: GMT Games
Art: Rodger B. MacGowan, Chechu Nieto, Mark Simonitch
Players: 1-4
Playing time: 180-300 mins

The post Fire In The Lake Review appeared first on Punchboard.

If you want to look under the hood of the game to see what makes it thrum, instead of just kicking the tyres and nodding with faux understanding, then read on.

Cuba Libre then – what’s it all about? It’s the second, and arguably most famous instalment in GMT Games’ COIN series. If you’ve visited here before, you might have read my reviews of some of the other COIN games – Gandhi and All Bridges Burning. I’m a huge fan of the counter-insurgency games, and I was really excited to take a stab at Cuba Libre, so to hark back to my original question – what’s it all about?

Your primer

It’s 1957. You’re Fidel Castro, and your 26July movement has designs on a revolution, aiming to overthrow the dictatorship currently ruling Cuba.

Actually, no, you’re playing the role of the government, looking to retain control of your island nation.

Then again, maybe you’re a part of the Directorio, the anti-communist movement. This is all getting confusing, isn’t it?

Perhaps we’ll just form a crime syndicate, open casinos across the country, and make some easy money when celebrities like Frank Sinatra visit.

The game is set during the Cuban Revolution, which happened around 1957-1959. You may not know the background and the history of what happened, but there’s a good chance you’ve heard of, or seen Pop Art of, some of the major players. Names like Fidel Castro, Ché Guevara, and Camilo Cienfuegos. If you want a bit more background, there’s a fantastic brief history here.

Playing as one of the four factions, you’ve each got to reach your very asymmetric goals before the other factions do the same, to claim victory. There’s a standard set of operations (actions) that many of the factions share, along with some special activities, which tend to be unique to each. All of the actions take place in the shadow of the deck of event cards, which churns its way inexorably towards the end of the game.

Most actions see you placing more units onto the board, spreading terror, attacking other factions, and trying to wrest control of the various spaces on the map. Most, if not all, factions in COIN games are looking to gain some kind of geographic dominance. That’s what you’re trying to do. That’s how you win.

A turn of events

The event cards are a common feature of COIN games, and they do a great job of putting el gato among las palomas. Each card not only determines the turn order for the current round but also has two contrasting views of an event, based on the real history of the situation.

Let’s look at an example.

The card Radio Rebelde lets the 26July player act first if they’re eligible for that turn. They choose to play the event text that says “Clandestine radio reaches masses: Shift 2 Provinces each 1 level toward Active Opposition.”. Powerful stuff – building opposition is a part of their win condition. But what happens if a rival gets to that event before them? They choose the other option on the card – “Transmitter pinpointed: Remove a 26July Base from a Province.”. That’s a double-blow for the 26July player, as bases not only count towards their win condition but also help them spawn more units onto the map.

The really clever thing that Cuba Libre does is to always show you the upcoming event, as well as the current one. There’s never an excuse for not knowing what was coming next and blaming bad luck. If you take a turn in a round, you’re ineligible for the following round. It means if there’s a powerful event coming up, you can pass to ensure you’re eligible, but then you’re not only skipping a turn but also gifting an opponent the opportunity to take the turn you were going to. It’s the cause of a lot of teeth-sucking, and it’s fabulous.

One of my favourite thing about COIN games, and war games in general, is how educational they are. If you take the time to read the material that comes with them and put the events on the cards into context, you end up with a combination of fun and learning that beats any ‘Edutainment’ CD-ROM you might have played in the ’90s.

Easy does it

If you’ve been looking into the COIN games, trying to decide which one to start with, there’s a good chance you’ve seen Cuba Libre suggested. It’s touted as “the easiest one”, or “the lightest one”, and there’s a grain of truth in there. The map and board are smaller than in some of the other games in the series, and when you see the island and its few brightly coloured provinces, it looks much more approachable than something like Gandhi, with its table-filling map of India.

There’s less intricacy and nuance in the various actions on your bi-fold menus of carnage – otherwise known as the player aids. Three of the factions are essentially trying to put lots of units on the map in order to take control and throw weight behind government support or opposition, wherever their loyalties might lie. It’s only the Syndicate which feels like an outlier, and to put that into context for those of you who have played Root (review here), they’re akin to the Vagabond in the base game. Never looking for outright dominance, instead, just looking to make the most of a bad situation.

What all of this means to you and me, is that Cuba Libre is a much easier game to explain, and it feels more intuitive. You can plan your machinations from turn one, and always have a clear view of what’s unfolding. There are four Propaganda cards shuffled into the event deck, each of which acts as a momentary pause in proceedings, and resets some of the various goings-on on the board – things like abject terror among the Cuban population – which is nice. There’s none of the “posturing and waiting for the Second Act” of All Bridges Burning, and the game state is much more easily intuited than trying to make sense of the Fire in the Lake map, for example.

Final thoughts

I stated that Cuba Libre is friendly in my opening paragraph. Friendly is a relative term when it comes to COIN games. I jumped in at the deep end when I took on Gandhi as my entry point into the series, and to call it daunting would be an outrageous understatement. COIN games do a great job of bridging the gap between heavy Euro and outright wargame, but the referential style of the rulebook, and the fact that there’s a rulebook and a playbook, will seem very alien to many boardgamers. If you’re prepared to invest in the GMT mindset, however, then hoo boy – there’s a heck of a game waiting on the other side.

The designers, Jeff and Volko, have baked an incredible level of balance into Cuba Libre. There are times when you’ll see someone’s victory marker creeping uncomfortably close to their victory position on the score track. Because the game state is so easy to read, they’ll often find themselves hauled back down into the dust-up by the other players, who are acting with an unspoken, collective understanding. Even when you’re the person being knocked back down a peg or two, you’ll still crack a wry smile at how well the game is working.

The non-player (NP) factions are still there, if you’re a solo player, or find yourself down a person or two at your games night, but the NP (AI) actions aren’t as quick and easy as All Bridges Burning, for example. That’s to be expected. We’re talking about a game that was released all the way back in 2013, which is an age in board game terms. It’s still perfectly playable, just be prepared to invest a little more time and mental energy in running the NP turns.

Choosing a favourite COIN game for me is a bit like choosing a favourite child for some people. I want to say I love them all equally, but I secretly love Cuba Libre the most. So much so I even sorted it all into the wonderful counter trays and card holders from Cube4Me. Just don’t tell the other COIN games in my collection, they’ll get jealous.

Review copy kindly provided by GMT Games. Thoughts and opinions are my own.

If you enjoyed this review and would like to read more like this, consider supporting the site by joining my monthly membership at Kofi. It starts from £1 per month, offers member benefits, and lets me know you’re enjoying what I’m doing.

Cuba Libre (2013)

Designers: Jeff Grossman, Volko Ruhnke
Publisher: GMT Games
Art: Xavier Carrascosa, Rodger B. MacGowan, Chechu Nieto
Players: 1-4
Playing time: 180 mins

The post Cuba Libre Review appeared first on Punchboard.

COIN it in

If you’ve been wargame-curious, there’s a good chance you’ve seen this capitalised ‘COIN’ somewhere. It’s a series of counter-insurgency games from various designers, all published by GMT Games. I guess you could call them wargames, but in my (admittedly limited) experience, there’s very little warfare. There’s no attack and defence values, or tiny numbers on a sea of cardboard chits. COIN games are about influence, control, and upsetting the balance of power. The lifeblood of COIN is an event deck which ticks away throughout the game, offering powerful opportunities, and sobering context to what’s happening on your table.

All Bridges Burning is a bit of an outlier in the series, as it’s one of the rare titles which isn’t built around four different factions. You take control of the Reds, seeking a working class revolution, the white Senate guard, trying to maintain control, or a third, blue, Moderate faction who want political reform. It gives the whole thing a very different feel, and I think it’s a real boon for new players. COIN games can be heavily asymmetric, and keeping track of what the other players are doing, as well as remembering their win conditions, is tough. Reducing that mental overhead by a third for each player isn’t to be sniffed at.

COIN games are strict in that all of the factions need to take part in every game, but at the same time they’re easy-going in that they don’t care how many meat-bags humans are taking part. The automa/AI players – or Non-Players (NPs) to use GMT’s parlance – are controlled with decks of cards and simple flow charts. Heck, you could have all three decks play against each other with no players at all if you really wanted to. The NP turns are super smooth, and mean that you can play a solo game relatively quickly. Solo play is great by the way, just be aware that the victory conditions are slightly different.

A game of two halves

All Bridges Burning has two distinct phases, and each has a markedly different feel. The first half of the game is spent posturing, building support, and doing your best to keep your cards (figuratively) close to your chest. There’s no hidden information at all.

The way these games convey theme still astounds me. For example – when the number of cells on the board reaches a critical mass, the Reds’ revolution begins. The tension this weaves into the game is fantastic. More and more activists spread across the map, vying for control of towns and regions. The white guard swell their numbers in response. You can feel it’s all going to kick off, and it’s a case of when – not if – it happens.

Up until that point, the red and white forces can’t even move around the map, let alone attack. Once the revolution starts, the game swings dramatically. Trains and cannons come into play, and all of a sudden you’re trying to build the foundations for Finland as it moves away from being a Russian duchy, into the 20th century. Russian and German troops are also in the country with their own vested interests, and the players can leverage them for their own goals. The poor Moderates are left trying to keep some kind of balance and political control while the rest of the country tears itself apart. The dichotomy between the two phases is stark, and really engaging.

If it sounds like it’s a long game, then you’re on the right track. You’re looking at something like at least three hours per game, and your first game will probably take twice as long, especially if you’ve never played a COIN game before. If it’s not your first rodeo, you’ll find it easier to pick up, but there are some notable changes from the previous games. GMT have kindly added callout boxes to the rulebook to bring these to your attention. The first you’ll notice is that eligibility order is based on player decisions now, not what’s drawn on the top of the card. It’s also likely you’ll take actions in nearly every round, not just every other.

All things in moderation

While COIN games are all about their asymmetry, it feels different in All Bridges Burning. Using Gandhi as my frame of reference, we had two violent and two non-violent factions. In All Bridges Burning, if you’re the player playing as the Moderates, it really feels like you’re playing a very different game to the others. The Reds and Whites are building up these huge forces across the map, bolstering their positions along the way, and you know that they’re going to spend the slugging it out. The Moderates though, they’re left stuck with six cells to place for the entire game. They can’t engage in combat. They feel less potent than the others.

It’s not a problem if you like COIN games, and you know what to expect, but if you’re playing this with someone new to the series, I’d suggest giving them control of red or white, instead of blue. The actions feel more tangible, and you get a better visual connection between what you’re doing and how it relates to your victory condition.

What I love about these games is the way they force you to make tough choices all the time. Everyone has their standard actions, and some powerful special commands at their disposal, which would make for an interesting game if those were all that happened. The event deck just turns things up to 11, and keeps throwing wonderful distractions out, tempting you off the road to victory. The cards offer all kinds of powerful actions, and all players know which card will be next. Sometimes you just have to pass your turn, delaying your plans, just to make sure you have first dibs on the next round’s card. That can be because you really want that next event, but nearly as often it’s just to deny one of your opponents the chance to do the same.

Hnnnnnghhh! Decisions are tough!

Final thoughts

Okay, I think I’m firmly in love with COIN games. When I first played Gandhi I was daunted, but perseverance rewarded me with one of my favourite games. I wondered whether a second COIN game would feel like more of the same, and it does. Except… it doesn’t. The system feels immediately familiar, the way the game works with its event deck, propaganda rounds, and standard actions. It doesn’t just feel like the same game with a fresh coat of paint though. All Bridges Burning isn’t just set in a different time and place, it also feels like a very different experience to play.

A game like this is never going to have the universal appeal of something like Ticket To Ride or Wingspan, and that’s okay. We’re talking about a pretty niche genre with COIN games, but I think that narrow slice of the board game pie-chart is getting bigger. So while I wouldn’t recommend you buy this to take over to play with the family at Christmas, I would say that if you’re into hobby board games, and are even remotely curious about COIN games, GMT Games, or wargames of any sort, this is a fabulous place to start.

I love the fact that all factions in All Bridges Burning need to be mindful of all of the moving parts on the board. There are very achievable conditions where none of the players win. The German and Russian supporting troops can win, but if they tie, nobody at all wins. Maybe that sounds terrible to you, but I love it. It keeps everyone aware of everything that’s going on, and it means towards the end of the game you could end up taking sub-optimal turns, just to avoid losing to a force who don’t have anyone controlling them!

All Bridges Burning is a fantastic game, and for now, it’s the COIN game I’d recommend to get started with. It’s Tosi hyvä.

Footnote

I know the way I talk about this game makes it sound like I have a very flippant take on what was a bloody civil war. A war in which nearly 40,000 Finns lost their lives. It’s important to acknowledge that while this is a game, it’s also a simulation of real-world events that happened. GMT, and their designers, have a real respect for the history, and manage to handle things with due sensitivity. The background and events are all explained in great detail, and at no point is it made light of. All Bridges Burning models what happened, and what could have happened. There’s no laughter to be had. It’s a tactical simulation, and if anything, leaves you with a profound sense of the scale of suffering a nation went through. It’s an educational, yet still enjoyable, experience. There’s further reading available from the rulebook, and all research is fully referenced throughout.

Review copy kindly provided by GMT Games. Thoughts and opinions are my own.

All Bridges Burning: Red Revolt and White Guard in Finland 1917-1918 (2020)

Designer: V P J Arponen
Publisher: GMT Games
Art: Chechu Nieto
Players: 1-3
Playing time: 180-360 mins

The post All Bridges Burning Review appeared first on Punchboard.

Before I get into the guts of this review, I want to give a brief disclaimer. I’m coming at this game from the point of view of a real dyed-in-the-wool Euro game fan. My sole exposure to wargames had been Root up until now. Make of that what you will.

In at the deep end

The first thing that struck me when I started reading the rulebooks, is the incredible amount of depth the game goes into. The historical research, explanations of the events through the final decades of the British Raj, and the attention to detail is amazing. It’s something you don’t really need in the sort of game I normally play. “You’re a gnome in a fantasy world where stuff happens” is enough for a game like Bonfire. It very quickly became apparent how absolutely crucial this historical accuracy (as far as possible) is in the context of the game.

Deep is good word to describe the gameplay too. Taking turns in Gandhi is mechanically a really simple process, but you better believe you’re not going to be taking your turn in a few seconds. There is so much to consider with every single turn of the event cards, to the extent that the game includes marker pawns to plan your turn with. You use them to mark potential provinces to take actions in, because you’ll run through so many scenarios in your head, it’s easy to forget what you were planning.

That level of depth, and the weight of complexity, presents a big barrier. It’s a barrier that’s probably too big to overcome for some people. It’s easily the most complex game I own, but it’s also one of the best. The difficulty isn’t the result of poorly-written rules, or questionable gameplay mechanisms. It’s complicated because there is so much going on, and so many considerations to make.

In control

Each of the four different factions in Gandhi has its own different objectives and win conditions, but all of them have a vested interest in who controls the provinces on the map. The back and forth of this control is what the entire game is built upon. Control of India is based on two main concepts: the number of units and bases present in a province, and the level of support for the various factions in those provinces. Managing both is a real balancing act, and it’s what makes Gandhi so enjoyable to play.

The central mechanism that rules the flow of the game is a turn order track on the top of each event card, and it’s genius. Players queue up to take actions, just like any other game, but the kicker is that only two of them get a chance to play each turn. If you perform actions in the current round you are unable to perform any in the next. You have to sit the round out, which leads to some agonising decisions to make.

The player at the head of the queue looks at the current event card, and the one coming up, and has to make some really difficult decisions. The first player to perform an action determines the action the second player can take, as the two are linked on a chart on the board. How beneficial is the upcoming event to me, or to my opponents? Is it worth taking a sub-par standard operation for my faction, forcing the next player’s hand? You’ll tear your hair out trying to figure out the best option, and you’ll love every second of it.

Variations on a theme

As a Euro game fan, theme isn’t always the biggest of my concerns. The way the theme and setting are integrated in Gandhi, however, is something special. The whole game is so closely tied to its historical setting, and designer Bruce Mansfield has created something remarkable. The way he’s managed to create four asymmetric factions – two of them non-violent – and balance them so well, is nothing short of witchcraft.

The non-violent (NV) factions are really important too, as they offer a way to play a genre of game that is so often dominated with opposing military forces duking it out. It shows there’s another way to do a war game, and opens avenues into these games for those who find gamifying war to be off-putting.

The operations at your disposal are so different across the factions, and the victory conditions so diverse. It makes the game feel immensely replayable, but it means you really need an understanding of each of them if you want to stand even an outside chance of winning. This is common with nearly all asymmetric games – it comes with the territory – but it’s especially true in Gandhi, such is the weight and complexity of the game.

Required reading

The first time I set Gandhi up on my table, I sat down and read the rulebook. Afterwards, I didn’t have a clue what to do. I sat there staring blankly at the board. Then, I read it again, and I still wasn’t sure. To say Gandhi is a dense game to get into, would be an understatement. I’m aware that this is probably a result of it being my first exposure to a COIN game, but it’s something to bear in mind if it’s likely to be yours too.

Initially I felt disheartened, so I watched a ‘how to play’ video, which helped, but I still felt a little lost. Then I had a proper read of the second book in the box, the Playbook, and things got a lot better. Included in that book is a full tutorial for a shorter, four faction game, and it’s the best tutorial I’ve ever used. It walks through a number of turns of a game, and explains – conversationally – what’s going on at every step, and importantly why each player is doing what they’re doing.

Once you get through that initial density, the game clicks, and then the rulebook shines. It’s indexed and cross-referenced throughout, and you’ll find you only reach for it for setup and rules references. The player aids included are excellent, and all you need to play the game.

Solo play

Gandhi features a non-player (i.e. AI, Automa) deck for each of the four factions, and the system is called Arjuna. When you’re playing with four players, these decks can stand in for the missing players, but more importantly, it also means you can play solo.

I’ve played with a lot of different solo systems, and Arjuna is one of the best I’ve used. The cards use a simple true/false flowchart system which makes them really easy to use. There’s still a lot of checking conditions as you go, but in a game designed to be played slowly, with campaigns spanning hours, this isn’t as big a deal as it might sound.

When you consider how complex Gandhi is, to be able to boil the priorities and decisions down to a small number of cards and a chart is very impressive. It’s a really good solo experience, and I recommend it to anyone looking for a solo wargame.

Final thoughts

This has been the most difficult review I’ve had to write so far. I felt a little out of my depth taking on a GMT game with a BGG weight of over 4, and as a matter of pride, I didn’t want to do a poor job of reviewing a genre of game I have so little experience of. Trying to encapsulate the feeling of playing this game and squash it down into 1,500 words is no easy job.

Gandhi is a dense, heavy game, and it’s absolutely not for everyone. However, if you like a game with depth, with difficult decisions to make, and with beautifully balanced asymmetry, then it’s a game for you. It’s a game you’ll love. Each time I’ve played has felt very different, and had plenty of twists and turns, and it feels like a game I won’t get tired of playing. Coming at it from the point of view as a Euro gamer helped, and to be honest with you, the process of playing a game like Gandhi isn’t that far removed from other area control games you might know.

The biggest surprise to me wasn’t that I enjoyed the game, but just how much I enjoyed it. Gandhi: The Decolonization of British India 1917-1947 is one of the best games I’ve ever played. It’s still early days, but I think it might be my favourite game. That’s not something I say lightly either. It took a long time for me to write that sentence and make sure I meant it. Gandhi is outstanding.

Review copy kindly provided by GMT Games. Thoughts and opinions are my own.

Gandhi: The Decolonization of British India 1917-1947 (2019)

Designer: Bruce Mansfield
Publisher: GMT Games
Art: Knut Grünitz, Charles Kibler, Rodger B. MacGowan, Mark Simonitch
Players: 1-4
Playing time: 90-240 mins

The post Gandhi (GMT Games) Review appeared first on Punchboard.