Board Games for Campaigns?

[racm32]

So I recently read the article "Wargames Campaigns And Medieval Strategy" by Dr Steve Tibble in issue 392 of Wargames Illustrated. Near the end he talks about using strategy board games to run multi-player campaign games to track the movement of armies, supplies, ect. The battles then could be fought on the tabletop.  It had never thought to use board games this way when trying to figure out good ways to run campaigns. I generally prefer tabletop over board games and there for am not very familiar with whats available or were to even look.
I would love some suggestions on either individual games or sources for these types of board games. I'm particularly interested in the following periods.
-First Punic War
-Dark Ages, western Europe specifically.
-French and Indian War
-Age of Piracy
-WW1 Eastern Front
-Modern (post 2000) Middle East

[Cubs]

'Risk' is the obvious one, which you can use for a load of different periods of course with its simplified world map. Pity you don't have 'Wars of the Roses' on your list, because 'Kingmaker' is an absolutely fantastic game and captures the political confusion of the conflict nicely.

[racm32]

I think Risk is a bit too zoomed out and too little detail. Sadly my collection does not yet extend to the War of the Roses but I will be getting some minis in soon to start doing early Medieval.

[Sir_Theo]

Boardgames Geek is the Imdb of boardgames and should be your first port of call when looking for any sort of boardgame.

I suspect a lot of (if not all)the periods you're interested in have been covered by GMT games, so they are worth checking out. For my money the COIN series of games by GMT are some of the finest board games ever made. I spent a week at the start i
of lockdown playing a solo game of Fire in the Lake, a game about Vietnam,.and it was fabulous. I can definitely see a lot of these games being suitable as campaign games with the action then moving to a miniature game.

A few suggestions:

Punic war
Hannibal and Hamilton Phalanx


https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/227460/hannibal-hamilcar

Carthage: the first punic war GNT games
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13855/carthage-first-punic-war

Dark Ages
878 Vikings Invasion of England- Academy Games
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/204516/878-vikings-invasions-england

FIW

Wilderness war - GMT
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1822/wilderness-war

Wilderness Empires- Worthington https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/168653/wilderness-empires

Age of Piracy

Blackbeard the golden age of piracy GMT games
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25685/blackbeard-golden-age-piracy

WW1 Eastern front

Illusions of Glory - GMT
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/157653/illusions-glory-great-war-eastern-front

Modern Middle East

A Distant Plain (COIN III)
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/127518/distant-plain

[Sir_Theo]

'Risk' is the obvious one, which you can use for a load of different periods of course with its simplified world map. Pity you don't have 'Wars of the Roses' on your list, because 'Kingmaker' is an absolutely fantastic game and captures the political confusion of the conflict nicely.

I still have vivid memories of playing Kingmaker 10 years ago (the last timemI played it) gathering all.my nobles at York to crown the pretender and then being hit by a plague sweeping through the city. The horror. The horror.

Kingmaker is a great shout. Its a bit creaky by modern g
Board game standards  but the worst part was always the battles so would probably be a really good thing to use for WotR campaigns.

[Cubs]

I still have vivid memories of playing Kingmaker 10 years ago (the last timemI played it) gathering all.my nobles at York to crown the pretender and then being hit by a plague sweeping through the city. The horror. The horror.

Horrible isn't it? One of those games where being in the ascendency doesn't mean you win, because it just takes one unfortunate event card ...

[Arrigo]

For Modern ME I would not suggest 'A distant Plain' or any COIN games at all. They are far too abstract for the purpose. Bear in Mind I wrote an excellent review of Andean Abyss on my blog, working on a less than positive one for Fire in The Lake (but used the game in class to good effect!), and I am a friend of Distant Plain's designer, so I am not opposed to COIN (shades of BGG...).

Pierre Razoux's new Fitna from NUTS publishing, is much better because gives you real military units and a more military campaign. But it still a zoomed out view.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/253696/fitna-global-war-middle-east

Probably you can find more campaign based games to your liking.

Have a look at Race to Baghdad,

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/167846/race-baghdad-2003

The game is focused on the 2003 Iraqi Freedom. You build up the coalition force, units are brigades and battalions, then you execute the operation against an artificial opponent (not genius, but reasonable, and with funny things and nasty  surprises). It works very well.

On the same vein you have Fallujah 2004

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/175235/fallujah-2004-city-fighting-iraq

Again solo game, but work well. I own both and are effective. You can use them to create an overarching narrative, and then zoom in for particular action of interests. Bear in mind, not all actions will deserve miniature resolution, and, with post 1900 games, you will find that the usual operational level is not translating directly into the tactical level we are used with miniatures. But the actual engagement  themselves create interesting match ups that then you can adapt to a miniature scenario.

For WW1 Eastern front have also a look at 'When Eagles Fight' by Ted Raicer. It covers the full war in the east at corps level. Originally published in Command Magazine, now by GMT packaged together with 1914 (covering the first months in the west).

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/158237/1914-glorys-end-when-eagles-fight

At a lower level...

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/86445/victory-complete-battle-tannenberg-1914

and

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2638/clash-giants-campaigns-tannenberg-and-marne-1914

But in WW1 you have the same problem, full scope of even a single 'battle' like Tannenberg translates badly to the usual miniature game. OF course there are grand tactical or even 'small operational' miniature rules that fits the bill, there is some sort of disconnection in scale.


For earlier period, the transition is smoother. Especialyl when you have campaign based on a sort of 'column' model.   For example I can second Wilderness War, the units on the map  being regiments... thus it  fits the bill wonderfully. The action on the game map perfectly translates to miniatures, and when you encounter a key action, you can pause the game resolve it with your favorite ruleset and then translates the results back on the map.

Yet... few years ago I read about a chap who came with a great idea... (that kind of 'great' idea...). Using World in Flames to fight WW2 but resolving every single battle with ASL... I think the most caritative comments was 'and the point?'   

Best,
Arrigo

[warrenpeace]

Edit: I see that Sir_Theo & Arrigo already posted some of this. Apology for the repetition.

-First Punic War
-Dark Ages, western Europe specifically.
-French and Indian War
-Age of Piracy
-WW1 Eastern Front

First Punic War might be GMT's deluxe edition of Sword of Rome. Or is that 2nd Punic War? I don't know ancient history, but I have that game. It's quite beautiful, and is a 4 or 5 player game. It's somewhat similar to Successors, another 4 player game that starts with the death of Alexander. Then there is the Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage, a very highly regarded 2 player wargame. All these are "card driven," meaning there are decks of cards for activations and events.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7480/sword-rome

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/26457/successors-thirdfourth-edition

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/234/hannibal-rome-vs-carthage

For dark ages I think there are some Viking wargames, but I'm not familiar with them. Look on BoardGameGeek. I really enjoyed an old game called Excalibur. It's not about armies though. It's up to six local lords struggling among themselves with their knights and men-at-arms to control the villages and resources in a county. Hard to find a copy, but worth it to look. Published in 1989, BGG page here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6646/excalibur

French and Indian War suggests another card driven wargame named Wilderness War. [this is already recommended by Sir_Theo]

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1822/wilderness-war

There are several games on piracy, including Blackbeard [already recommended by Sir_Theo] and Merchants & Marauders. Look on BoardGameGeek for suggestions.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25685/blackbeard-golden-age-piracy

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25292/merchants-marauders

For WW1 east front campaigns, I'd suggest going to the very long WW1 thread on the BoardGameGeek wargames forum. There are some games dealing with specific battles and campaigns there, but that wargames forum thread is the place to go to find out about them. It's 46 pages long of forum replies. But you'll likely find smaller battles and campaigns on the east front in there:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/349281/world-war-one-gamers

Good luck!

[Arrigo]

Sword of Rome is covering Rome rising in the peninsula. Stop short of the Punic wars...

<now I  start to throw several Greek and Roman roof tiles toward Warrenpeace...>

I owned it in the past (got involved into it...) but never really liked it, traded away.

I would suggest either Hannibal and Hamilcar (from Phalanx... and no Hamilton involved...)  that is the new edition of the great Hannibal from AH (skipping the crap re-edition from Valley Games... home of the cheaters...).  The war itself is quite well suited for that sort of transition, with few but critical large battles.

Another useful recommendation is

Carthage by the late Richard Berg, from GMT.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13855/carthage-first-punic-war

The amount of detail is higher, and you have rated leaders (not just the big wigs) and rules for random consul selection and other Roman official appointments. Plus the granularity of force composition is better, dividing between infantry and cavalry and various nationalities.  You can have the different contingents in a Carthaginian army. Of course more granularity means a bit more complexity. But not that much.

[Captain Gars]

We used the "Strategy One" and Avalon Hill "Blitzkrieg" maps for campaigns. Both are maps of a fictional continent.

The "Blitzkrieg" games should be fairly cheap and available on Ebay.

[Dan55]

If you're willing to skip 20 years ahead, 1776 is a fabulous in-depth campaign for the American Revolution.

[FierceKitty]

Alternately, look at some of the best self-regulating strategic games, then write your own for the big picture stuff. I did it a few years ago for a 17th-century campaign with Turks, Poles, Swedes, Cossacks, and Muscovites, partly reflecting what armies were available, and it worked very well; the only problem was the usual curse of campaigns, namely that a badly beaten player often never gets a chance to get back onto his feet.

[warrenpeace]

Arrigo, I stand corrected. Sword of Rome covers 90 years from 362 AD until 272 AD, so stops 8 years short of the start of the 1st Punic War. Carthage is a major factor, however,, whether as a non-player power or played using the 5th player expansion.

Although I agree that Sword of Rome isn't that great as a wargame, mainly because of the dicey combat system, it might be an excellent campaign framework and  battle generator for miniatures. Since it involves Rome, Carthage, the Volcii (for a turn or two), the Greeks, the Samnites, the Etruscans, the Gauls, and the Trans-Alpine Gauls, several colorful ancient armies could be used. It would also accommodate 5 players.

However, you are far more knowledgeable about ancients than I am, and your suggestion goes to what the OP asked for, 1st Punic War.

[Dr. Zombie]

I have tried playing campaigns using both "Hannibal and Hamilcar" "Crown of Paper" and "Mighty Empires".

But we have found that we get so absorbed in the boardgames themselves that fighting the battles using miniatures actually slows everything down and becomes a bit of a distraction.

[Arrigo]

I have tried playing campaigns using both "Hannibal and Hamilcar" "Crown of Paper" and "Mighty Empires".

But we have found that we get so absorbed in the boardgames themselves that fighting the battles using miniatures actually slows everything down and becomes a bit of a distraction.

Have to agree 

Also in some eras the battle is not the focus of a campaign. Something that you really forgot in just fighting battles on the table... when you move to the campaign, you start to get a bit worried about your army. You want to nail the bad guys (often led by your friend...) without a pitched battle, because... well... what happens if you lose it?  Lose you army too early in a campaign season and you are toothless... There is something true in the claim from Dr. Alan James that something western military history (and by extension wargaming) is obsessed with the idea of the 'decisive field battle'. They are important but often not the ultimate goal...

There is a series of air-naval games designed by Paul Rorhbaugh, 'Flying Tigers', 'Cartwheel', and 'Forlorn Hopes' that fell into this trap. They have an operational approach (in order they cover Burma 41-42, Rabaul and the Solomons 1943, and finally the NEI in 42) but air combat is resolved at tactical level on a separate map. It is nice because you really appreciate mission planning, different approach to escort and intercept and so on... but that for each mission, it stops the game, and sometime leave you  with a 'distraction' feel. Of course the missions are a bit abstracted so you do not have to generate that many per turn... but still it could be a slow process (and also leave you with the  feeling there is too much abstraction one side or the other of the equation...).

Said that I have found that playing the games and recording the 'critical' battles, and then creating tactical scenarios for them, is a good approach.