COINs

Well, my current gaming obsession isn't so much one game as it is a company - specifically GMT games. If you asked boardgames, they'd likely indicate that they know of GMT - they make war-games, right? Well, yeah, they make some fine hex-and-counter (so I hear) games. This includes my number one game of all time, Combat Commander: Europe (if you haven't experienced CC:E, I'm very sorry).

They do make other games as well, but for the most part, they focus on quality games with decent parts - whether that's chits, wooden bits or whatever. The rules are generally good if not a little spartan. As I get older in my gaming life, I'm finding that I appreciate the depth of some of these games more than I appreciate the overly produced less interesting games that tend to make up the majority of  publisher's offerings these days. That's not to say that there aren't good games out there and not to say that GMT games are all special, just that I'm starting to appreciate some of the complexity of this company's offerings.

In particular, I've found the series of COIN games of some interest. The first COIN game (which stands for Counter Insurgency) was designed by Volko Ruhnke and published in 2012 (Andean Abyss). This was followed up by Cuba Libre, which was designed by Jeff Grossman and Volko. Other games by other designers were released year after year and the count of the games in the series currently stands at 15 (published or near published). The game system has done very well and each game slightly modifies the system and presents a different historical period and area of the world (including soon - outer space).

The key to this series is the basic gameplay. Multiple asymmetric factions (2-4) trying to accomplish their own unique goals of control (it might be area control, it might be control of the minds of the people or whatever). It's easy to believe this might be a war-game - there are hints of that and because of the basic topic, the scenarios often revolve around wars and related struggles. It's also not quite dudes-on-a-map.

What it is, is a four-way tug-of-war. Sometimes you and another faction pull in similar directions, but ultimately, you mostly pull your own way. The government faction wants control and peace. The insurgents want disruption and chaos. The other factions? Maybe they want control through money, maybe they want their own separate space. Maybe they want a little bit of control and not quite so much chaos. 

The heart of the COIN system is the interactions of the players each turn through the card system that drives the games. Each turn there is a single shared event card. On the top of the card is the order that each faction will have their opportunity that turn. Only one faction will get to execute the event (if at all). And, only two factions will act per card (players may pass until the next round if they so choose). Players that take actions from the card are not eligible to act on the next card. Here's the kicker - the card for the next round is fully known. The start player on card one may have good options to act on "their card", but they can see what's coming next and probably infer what their opponents might do or how they might react to what they do now. They can force a reaction (or try to position themselves to keep the damage down). It is this bit of delicious simplicity that makes these games what they are (ok, that and each faction feels and acts differently). 

The insurgents are trying to start more fires than the Government can control, the Government is trying to uncover all the hidden guerrillas so they can't cause trouble. Its all wonderful. And if guerrilla warfare in the Columbian jungle or the Cuban revolution doesn't interest you, there are other theaters - India and their non-violent struggle to get out from under the British, The American Revolution, the Americans against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and a number of others. Each game brings a unique twist to the core system of asymmetric factions and action selection driven by the cards.

One other thing drew me to the COIN series - GMT ranks them extremely high on the "Solitaire Suitability" scale. And that's because they include bots or flowcharts for the factions so that you can play a full game while only acting for one of the factions and letting the others be automated. I'm currently in the midst of a solitaire game of Gandhi and this solitaire system is everything you'd hope for as far as "opponents" that provide a somewhat realistic approach and are competitive without simply skirting the rules and boundaries of the game. And unlike a lot of standard euros that have a solo mode, these aren't simple efficiency challenges. It simply isn't that kind of game and it requires more effort. Hint: it's worth the effort. Solo won't ever replace real players for me, but I'm enjoying these solo a lot more than I ever thought I would.

---------

I did say that GMT games were my current obsession though, not just the COIN series. Last year, in search of something I could play solo, I stumbled into SpaceCorp: 2025-2300AD. SpaceCorp is a (surprise!) space exploration game played over three eras - near solar system, outer solar system, and finally near galaxy exploration. The beauty of this game (and there is lots to love) is that the game system is actually pretty simple. Turns are simple action that take almost no time to take. Complexity in one era is only marginally expanded upon in the next, so you learn the game as you go. This isn't a 4X game, its a corporate race to find profit as we explore space in the near future, so there is no combat - you simply try to manage your meagre technology (such as it is) to make your exploration teams more efficient at travel and building bases. Along the way, there are a couple of surprises, but not an overwhelming game. Despite its simplicity, the game is engaging and offers players a constant stream of interesting choices to make. And as I mentioned it plays solo. 

THIS solo bot is a cheater. In fact, the bot doesn't really try to mimic player choices and actions, instead each turn the bot simply adjusts the game state in some way that mimics the results a player might produced had they acted a certain way. In some ways it does make the solo game an efficiency puzzle combined with a little press your luck, but it doesn't feel like it - it feels like you are playing someone else whose turns you don't get to see, just the results of their actions. All in all, this is a good solo experience and even more fun with real opponents.

---------

Also acquired recently (Christmas) was Imperial Struggle. At first glance, the cover of this game looks like a war-game. Open the box? A crazy complex looking map spanning the world and a sheets of counters to punch out. But this is definitely a "looks can deceive" game. Imperial Struggle is designed by the team that created the amazing Twilight Struggle (and they tag this as its spiritual successor in the rulebook). After watching a quick explanation video, I realized that the game was not nearly as intimidating as I thought when I first opened the box. In fact, the overly complex board is not nearly as complex as I thought and is decently done, once your head wraps around what you are seeing. 

Imperial Struggle certainly scratches a similar game feel as Twilight Struggle and provides a similar tug-of-war, back-and-forth series of trying to control the map better than the other guy, but otherwise is almost nothing like it's "spiritual counterpart". In fact, if I had to pick between the two, the edge Twilight Struggle holds for me (at the moment) is that the subject is more immediately part of me - I grew up in America at the end of the Cold War and the history was part of either what we learned about or lived through. I have no such association with (and if I'm being honest, knowledge of) the events that Imperial Struggle plays through. 

Thankfully random theme never bothered me in games about Medieval Merchants, Train Barons or any High Fantasy game. But Imperial Struggle isn't a tacked on theme. It's a story element with a game abstraction layer. Luckily, it is a very good game abstraction layer. Two players are going to alternate making action selections each turn to improve their positions in Europe, North America, the Caribbean, and India. Each round, different areas of the map are going to be important. Each round different goods markets are going to be important, and each round, different events/cards are going to be available for players to take advantage of. It is another masterful game from Matthews and Gupta and one that I feel may have been overlooked in a way their previous games were not.

---------

One of the best part of the GMT game library? A large number (most?) are available to play via Vassal. Vassal is a platform that supports PBEM (by saving log files and emailing them back and forth) and live online play of a number of games. Most of the game don't enforce all the rules for you - you have to know how to play, but a lot of them have been put together such that they will do some of the bookwork for you. 

I highly recommend Vassal when learning COIN games - the game module will clean up automatically for you and track the resources and winning scores / conditions for the players, taking that out of the novice player's (that includes me) hands, simplifying what you have to pay attention to. There is a little learning curve to Vassal and each module is different due to being put together by different people, but the games are very playable. I'm currently playing Gandhi solo using the cards and references from the box game and Vassal to track the game state for me. It works very well and doesn't take any table space up!