State of Play: Waterloo Solitaire Boardgame

  

 

 

I had a free hour-and-a-half on Tuesday, so I took Waterloo Solitaire Boardgame Edition (Worthington Publishing. 2023 – an unboxing can be found here) out for a turn. I haven’t played the Waterloo Solitaire Book Game (Worthington Publishing, 2021) on which this was base, but I understand it’s a pretty faithful interpretation of the original.

The Veteran Allied Actions card, mounted on its easel. I thought during the Kickstarter
campaign that it was a bit of a gimmick, but now I'm absolutely sold on the easel.

Let’s be clear from the start; this is not a faithful recreation of the nuances of the pivotal battle that conclusively drew a line Napoleon’s martial ambitions. Waterloo Solitaire is definitely positioned close to the “Game” end of the Simulation/Game continuum, and it makes no apologies for that. The original book games were conceived in the time of lockdowns and enforced isolation and brought a brief reprieve from ennui to thousands of people.

This was my first time out, so there were plastic bags to tear open and pieces to locate. I’d already split the single card-deck into its constituent sets of Allied and French cards. I’d settled on playing as the French because looking at the victory conditions, it seemed Napoleon would have a slightly tougher time of it. This wasn’t my first rodeo with a Worthington solitaire game, so I knew not to expect to win on the first time out (or the second, or the eighteenth, maybe). Even being the first time out, set-up still took less than ten minutes (probably closer to five; I didn’t check my watch).

The initial set-up and my opening hand; a good spread of options to start with.

The game has two adjustment points for difficulty, hand size (and what I think of as opponent-difficulty (each side has three levels of resolve; Challenging, Veteran and Tough). I intended to play the middle-path, but inadvertently make things a little tougher on myself, something I’ll come back to later.

Each turn, the player selects an Order Card to play from his hand, placing it face-up in a conspicuous place. He then rolls for the Bot action; on a 2-5, the Bot chooses an action eerily prescient of the player’s chosen order, seemingly calculated to mitigate or nullify the effect of the order before it can be played at least a third of the time. I know how this sounds; I don’t have the mathematical chops to model how this is possible. I don’t think Worthington solitaire games are somehow cursed. But a slither of doubt lingers. We'll have to see how a second game plays out.

Case in point. Three times in the course of the game I played a Fire Artillery order.
In response, the Bot "rollled" Reverse Slope Tactics for two of those orders,
nullifying those potential hits. It's like the game and the die are in cahoots. 

An inauspicious beginning

In my first turn, I decided to lead with the First Corps. Before the First and Second Corps can attack their corresponding Allied infantry Wings, they first have to deal with the garrisons at La Haye Saint and Hougoumont respectively, much like the British facing the Mill in Freeman’s Farm 1777 (Worthington Publishing, 2019). In that first turn I lost two blocks from the First Corps, one from a roll of five on the Allied Actions matrix – Allied Artillery Fire – and one from the stout defence put up by the 2nd Light Infantry Battalion of the King’s German Legion. This opening set the tone for what was to come. It would take assaults over four turns to clear the eastern chateau, and another two against Hougoumont, at a terrible cost in troops.

Combat is brutal in Waterloo Solitaire, and the odds are weighted against the player, or at least that’s how it seems when you’re the player. As a rule, the French score hits on low rolls, the Allies on high rolls. Add to this the nearly ubiquitous +2 modifier on many of the Allied orders, and in many cases the best the French player can hope for is a one-for-one hit exchange. This sounds like a complaint; it’s not meant to be – it’s just an observation. The game should be challenging (the lowest rated Bot matrix is called “Challenging”); if the game was easily won, you’d lose interest very quickly.

End of turn five. Already, things aren't looking good for the French.

The first Prussians arrived in turn four. The next turn, I sent the Reserves to check their progress, only to lose two blocks to the Allied cavalry (on a roll of the Cavalry Charge order, the Allied cavalry pre-emptively attacks whichever French formation has been ordered for that turn), then a third in an exchange.

Around the middle of the game – turn eight or nine, I sent the Old Guard out against La Haye Sainte, then again two turns later. The first time they were beaten back with heavy losses. The second – two turns later – they sacrificed themselves to clear the chateau in an exchange of hits. In between, Blucher had begun to arrive in force. If there are seven or more Prussian blocks on the board at the end of a turn, that’s an automatic win for the Allies. In the course of the game, I rolled a favourable one once. Every other one on a die roll came up on the Allied roll, and they seemed to come in pairs, inviting more and more Prussians to the party.

 

The end of the battle

Going into turn sixteen, having cleared Hougoumont and La Haye Saint, I was ready to make my final assault on the Allied lines. My Reserve and Imperial Guard had both lost all cohesion and withdrawn from the field of battle, both having sustained terrible losses at the hands of la belle Alliance. My First Corps was down to two blocks and my Second Corps had been reduced to a single block, but my two cavalry wings were both more or less intact; in the face of adversity, I thought a Je vous salue, Marie may just see the French carry the day. With three turns left victory was a tantalising mirage for a dying man.

I played a Cavalry Charge order. Intending to try to sweep up the Allied Right Wing and clear the way in the next turn to vanquish the Left Wing. Rolling for the Allies resulted in a result of one, followed by another one rolled on the Tactical Events table – Blucher Leads the Way. Two more Prussian units arrived in the woods, triggering an attack on the First Corps (the Prussians convincingly outnumbering the French). A To-Hit roll of five (with +2 modifier, of course) put an end to Napoleon’s Imperial dreams once and or all.

Final state. The Allies lose the game in a turn when two formations - Left Wing,
Right Wing or Reserves - are destroyed, but the French lose if either Corps is
vanquished, which is what happened, thanks to Blucher's (un)timely arrival. 

Mistakes were made

The hand-size difficulty adjustment is meant to limit player options in a given turn. The difficulty levels here are as follows; seven-card hand for Rookie, six for Experienced, and five for the Grognard. I didn’t check this when I set up for play, and misremembered the Experienced level being five cards, so I ended up playing a tougher game than intended, though I don’t think the extra card would have made much difference in light of my die-rolling and the lack of use of my Combined Arms option. This was another mistake. I declined from using the Combined Arms in the early turns, then I kind of slipped into a routine of card plays and ignored the option (this is the kind of mistake you make early and just once). Honestly, I don’t think they would have helped me keep both Corps in good order with the 5s and 6s the Wellington Bot kept scoring against my formations.

One game isn't enough to begin exploring strategies or testing tactical advantages, and it's easier to see mistakes after you've made them. The more time spent with Waterloo Solitaire, the better the odds of not losing so catastrophically. But that's what keeps bringing me back to games like this, the prospect or hope of not losing the same way twice. 

*****

So, the game was indeed an inauspicious introduction to Waterloo Solitaire. I expected to lose, but I’d hoped to lose in the last round, not two rounds early. The game is tough, even at a fairly moderate setting. Next time out I will stick to the Grognard (five-card) hand-size, but try the Challenging Allied order matrix rather than the Veteran. I’ll also make judicious use of the Combined Arms option, to cancel out the near ubiquitous +2 modifiers applied to so many of the French To-Hit rolls.

I only had enough time for a single game this time out; with every other Worthington solo game I’ve played, I’ve immediately reset it for a second inevitable loss straight after my first. I’ll be getting Waterloo Solitaire back to the table sooner rather than later, though There are other games also vying for my attention at the moment. But it’s a comparatively short experience, definitely playable inside of an hour, so I‘m sure I’ll be able to squeeze it in somewhere.

 

 

 

Stripped Down for Parts: Waterloo Solitaire: Board Game Edition

 

 

During the lockdowns of the early 2020s, Worthington released their first book-games, Waterloo Solitaire (Worthington Publishing, 2021) and Bismarck Solitaire (Worthington Games, 2021). While not a new concept, Worthington was the first mainstream wargame publisher to bring the concept to market, brilliantly avoiding the shipping woes facing publishers, by making the books available as volumes print-on-demand directly from Amazon. These reportedly saved the sanity of hundreds of wargamers, and the line has gone from strength to strength, with the publisher now boasting thirteen titles in their book-game series. Their early success has also offered proof of concept for other designers producing games exclusively for this production model.

Two years after the book-game publication, Worthington announced a Kickstarter campaign for a Waterloo Solitaire: Board Game Edition (Worthington Publishing, 2023). I missed the Kickstarter for the boardgame version, but with the happy confluence of a windfall coming at the same time as Worthington offering a very good sale price on the game, I couldn’t go past it. I have a handful of solitaire wargames, and I’ve enjoyed every one of them immensely.

The box cover illustration captures the character of much of the Battle of Waterloo, It’s an extract from a watercolour painting by Denis Dighton, The Defence of the Chateau de Hougoumont by the flank Company,Coldstream Guards, 1815. Dighton painted the scene in the same year as the happenings; this is one of several paintings he executed portraying scenes from the battle after visiting the site mere days after the decisive battle, making extensive sketches of the buildings and terrain in order to accurately portray the scenes. The original painting is on display at the National Army Museum in London.

Box-back.

The back of the box offers a hint of what’s inside, with sample cards and pieces superimposed over the play-map image. It also offers a paragraph broadly speaking to the historical and social significance of the battle rather than the game-play, headed with the famous quote by Wellington about the battle being the “nearest run thing”. The other information is more forthcoming; a manifest briefly lists the components included, and the graphic indicators put the games difficulty at 2 out of 5 and the solitaire suitability (being a solitaire-only game) at 5 out of 5. The game is recommended for ages 14 and up, and the duration should be inside of an hour.

The rule booklet.

The rulebook for Waterloo Solitaire comes to just eight clearly readable and well-illustrated pages. Worthington prides itself on short, clear and understandable rulebooks, and this is a solid example. It helps that the play of the game is so straight-forward, sharing its genetics with the Great Sieges series (reviews here, here and here) and Tarawa 1943 (Worthington Publishing, 2020)

Sample page.

The rulebook is printed on a nice low-sheen gloss paper, presented in a very readable serif font (from the Garamond family). The illustrations are clear and useful, but all in all, Waterloo Solitaire should be easy enough game to learn through diving into a game and following the Sequence of Play.  

The board. As usual, my inferior photography doesn't do it justice.

The game board is 17” by 22’ and mounted. The art is reminiscent of the kinds of after-action maps of military engagements that inspired this kind of wargaming in the first place. Starting locations for the unit blocks are marked with a solid rectangle of the matching colour, while rectangles outlined in these colours denote the positions Reserve units (and when available, the Prussian forces) may move to via game functions. The whole effect is wholly engaging, and the map is really quite nice to look at. The board also incorporated a Turn Track and a separate Combined Arms track (I’ll talk more about this in the AAR when I get to it).

The board is probably most reminiscent of another Worthington game, Freeman’s Farm, 1777 (Worthington Publishing, 2019), in that there is very little movement of available forces. The lack of manoeuvre will, I’m sure, put some gamers off from the outset, but as I’ve written elsewhere, this kind of play can still feel dynamic and challenging.

Two of the three Order Cards. These all present clear instructions
for your inevitable defeat.

The Bot function is handled by a set of Action Cards. These consist of three double-sided boards, representing the responses by the opposing Bot to the player’s choice of orders. The responses are decided by a die roll. The three boards represent three levels of difficulty, Challenging, Veteren, and Tough. Normally. I try not to get too deep into discussing game processes in an unboxing post, but I think it would be useful to mention the sequence of play here.

In the course of play the player will have a hand of cards drawn from their Command Deck (I’ll come back to these shortly), and Order Card representing the opposing side set up for play. Each turn, the player will select a command card from their had and place it face up in front of themselves. Then a die is rolled and the corresponding opposing order in the lower section on the Order card is enacted before the command card is played; if a one is rolled, the die is re-rolled, and the player refers to the more challenging upper row – the Tactical Action table – which is then resolved. After the enemy action has been resolved, the Command Card is played (if still possible). In this way, play is similar to games like 1759: Siege of Quebec (Worthington Publishing, 2022).

The easel, as yet unsullied.

Waterloo Solitaire also comes with an easel, a jointed heavy-weight cardboard Action Card holder so you can position it next to the board and refer to it at a glance, without having to stop what you’re doing and pick the matrix up to check your die results.

This might be considered a novelty – I think it may have been initially added as a Kickstarter stretch goal – but in the past I haven’t been above using my wife’s recipe book holder for the very same purpose. I’ll keep it in the box for now, but it may end up too useful to confine it to just this game.

Tray and contents. The extra compartment lets you separate the Allied
and French decks (no fraternisation among the troops).

Worthington has been incorporating trays into their games for some years now. I’ve read that some folks rather they didn’t, but I think these six-pot trays make perfect sense for games with cards and/or wooden pieces. I still put light-tension bands around the cards to stop them from coming adrift, but these are super helpful for keeping sets of components together.

Sample cards. Many of there orders offer two or more alternative functions.
This won't necessarily make winning any easier.

Waterloo Solitaire comes with two twenty-six card decks, one each for the two sides of the conflict. Along with the three levels of Bot difficulty, the player can increase the game’s challenge by adjusting the hand size he has to choose from. The rules recommend a seven-card hand for a Rookie, six for the Experienced player, and five for the Grognard. Among the cards are a selection of orders, each specific in their function, with the exception of the Wellington/Napoleon cards which facilitate any single card order, and each limited in number.

The cards are printed on a good weight of card and each order boasts its own artwork. These are drawn from contemporary paintings of the battle, and lend another level of verisimilitude to the play.

Infantry blocks, uncomplicated and uniform.

Action in the game is abstracted to nameless Infantry (plain) and Cavalry (screen-printed with the traditional sash marking on one face) formations, represented by elongated wooden blocks, blue for the French, red for the Anglo-Alliance and green for the Prussians. The blocks are, in essence, casualty markers. They are chunky and tactile, identical to those used in the Great Sieges games. In those games, when your forces take a loss there’s a visceral sense of diminishing strength; the weight of the blocks lend a tangible presence, lending a metaphysical weight to their removal from the board. Several yellow cubes for use on the Turn and Combined Arms tracks also included, along with the single die required for rolls.

You can't see them all here, but the Cavalry blocks are all stencilled in like manner.
I'll get some better photos for the AAR. 

I'm certain the lack of detail in formation attribution will be enough to put some folks off the game. I can't speak to that; everyone has their own criteria for what they look for in a wargame, and I can understand the preference for granular detail. This game won't be for everyone, but I've had a lot of fun with similar games, and I expect to here as well. (And there I go practically reviewing the game before I've played it.)

I’ve been hoping to get my hands on a copy of Waterloo Solitaire for some time now. Worthington has produced a good number of my favourite fast-play solitaire games over recent years, and I expect this one to live up to my expectations. I anticipate posting an initial game report soonish.

 

 

A Modest Proposal: Aspirational Wargaming for 2026

 

 

"Hougoumont - burial ground after the battle" - aquatint by James Rouse.

With the end of the year coming up, I’ve been thinking about what the future holds in regard to wargaming. I’m reluctant to make bold declarations or plans for 2026; I experience little difficulty setting goals, but I haven’t demonstrated a strong track record in sticking to them, even relatively modest ones. 

This doesn’t mean, though, that I can’t look forward to good things in my future. Philosopher, novelist and French Resistance fighter Albert Camus said that the one thing that separates humans from other animals is our capacity for hope. What follows is a small declaration of my own humanity, short list of my material hopes for the coming year. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but this coming year I'm planning (there's that word again) to try to keep to modest aspirations.

I was originally going to call this post "Wishlist Games," but it's not really a wish-list if I've already paid for three of them. So I went with "aspirational wargaming." This puts the emphasis on the playing of these games rather than simply their acquisition (which will no doubt bring its own joy as well).

 

La Der des Ders theatre board. Each player also has their own status board.

La Der des Ders (War to End Wars) (Hexasim, 2025)

This has only just recently been received at Hexasim headquarters, like in just the last couple of weeks of so (at time of writing). La Der des Ders is a redevelopment and expansion of designer Arnauld Della Siega’s earlier game of the same title, which appeared in the No. 145 (May/June 2019) issue of Vae Victis.

This is an abstracted game covering the entirely of the Great War via significant historical events and technological innovation. I get that this kind of abstraction isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but the game is said to play out within two hours and offer a multitude of tough decision-points along the way, which puts it squarely in my wheelhouse. Hexasim's production standards are always nice, and the presence of a solid solitaire implementation, allowing play of either the Entente or Central Powers makes this a must-have.

 How many WWI games does a man need? It would seem just one more.

 

Cover art for Coast Watchers. Honestly not my favourite cover art ever,
but you don't play the box-top.

Coast Watchers: Allied Field Intelligence in the South Pacific, 1942-1943 (GMT Games, ~2026)

Coastwatchers is the first volume of a new series from designer of note, Volko Ruhnke, called the Recon series. I believe this game grew out of Mr Ruhnke’s work on another hidden information game, Hunt for Blackbeard (Fort Circle Games, ~2026). Which hasn’t quite made it to store shelves yet, but you can already try out with fully functioning implementation on Rally the Troops.

Coast Watchers simulates the activities of the Allies’ human early-warning system of volunteers scattered among the islands of the South Pacific who monitored the activities of Japanese naval and air assets at a crucial point in the Pacific War. The game revolves around the Japanese players need for secrecy and search for the Allies coast-watching assets, and the Coast Watchers teasing out intelligence and evading capture.

With a second game, Drachen (GMT Games, ~2027?) already in development, the Recon series looks like it may become another COIN or Levy and Campaign. Again, this game also includes a fully developed solitaire system, so I won’t have to wait on somebody else’s availability to dive into Coast Watchers. Needless to say, I have both games on order with the publisher.

 

Battle Commander, Vol 1. (French edition, in case there was any confusion).

Battle Commander, Vol. 1: Napoleon’s Italian Campaigns (Sound of Drums, ~2026)

Battle Commander is a Carl Paradis design (which made it an instant order for me) and is envisioned to cover six volumes in total, dropping in roughly chronological order – Volume 1 covers Napoleon’s Italian Campaigns, while Volume 2 will handle the engagements of the Second and Third Coalitions. Another Napoleonic battle system I hear you say? Well, this is different and promises to be a good fit for me, at least.

Battle Commander units and markers.

Units are represented by wooden markers signifying infantry, cavalry and artillery. The action is card driven, and the combat diceless. This isn’t Mr Paradis’ first venture into diceless combat resolution; Absolute War! The Russian Front 1941-45 (GMT Games, 2021) used a similar card-draw result system for the random element. Activation will be handled with a cube-pull mechanic (which sounds great – cubes should wear better than cardboard chits).

Another thing that will no doubt get some noses out of joint will be the maps, or specifically the regulation of movement. Battle Commander uses a kind of hybrid area-movement/brick-offset model that sounds batty but should work quite well in play.

This might sound all a bit too mush for some folks. I’m willing to take a punt on it; in fact, I already have. I believe the Pledge manager for BC Vol. 1 has now closed, but I supported the campaign to the tune of the base box and an expansion that adds two battles to the game. Everything is printed and should be making its way to Sound of Drums HQ, and I’m pretty confident of seeing it arrive in the first half of 2026. Lots of pictures and opinions will be forthcoming.

Napoléon 1870* (Shakos, hopefully ~2026-27)

Long time readers will know I’m a fan of Denis Sauvage’s Conquerors series; the first three games, Napoléon 1806 (Shakos, 2012 – review), Napoléon 1807 (Shakos, 2020 – review), and Napoléon 1815 (Shakos, 2022), covered three significant campaigns of Napoleon’s career using an innovative system to squeeze a real corps-level operational experience into a manageable two-to-three hours of table-time.

The cards and blocks look familiar, but the railway tracks are new.

I first heard of a planned Napoléon 1870, dealing with the events of the Franco-Prussian War, maybe two years ago, when Fred Serval mentioned it in a Homo Ludens channel update. Since then, rumours have continued, and around the middle of this year, M. Sauvage released some prototype images on the Conquerors Facebook group of the game board and components, including a cover confirming M. Seval and Brian Asklev as the designers. The artist on the project is Nicolas Triel. 

The last time I checked, there was nothing “official” on the Shakos website. They have been busy with other projects of late, but I for one hope they will free up some space in their production schedule for Napoléon 1870.

 

The manoeuvre portion of the Brandywine 1777 board, with cohesion tracking for the
British and Hessian forces in the foreground (Colonial forces deployed on-map).
Note the inset rows for the cohesion tracks. 

Brandywine 1777: A Time for Heroes (Les 3 Zouaves, ~2026)

Andy Loakes and Yves Roig took inspiration from Maurice Suckling’s Chancellorsville, 1863 (Worthington Publishing, 2020 – review) and created Gettysburg: A Time for Heroes (Worthington Publishing, 2024), which, in spite of my best efforts, I have not yet secured a copy thereof. Since then, M. Roig has taken the game model to the new places, having just completed a Gamefound campaign for Brandywine, 1777: A Time for Heroes, under the auspices of his own company, Les 3 Zouaves (note: at time of press, the campaign is still open for late backers). Having learned my lesson, I backed this one early, and all things being equal, it should be out in the first half of the new year.

Brandywine begins as the battle is engaged. On the crowded battlefield, manoeuvre is constricted, with units forced to take preset paths based on restrictive terrain and enemy placement, and every move reduces a unit’s cohesion. Blocks represent the available units, and their relative strength, or cohesion, is recorded n a series of dedicated tracks along that player’s side of the board. Cohesion is key to the game; it is a limited resource and everything a unit does – manoeuvre or battle – will reduce it. This won’t sound like fun for some gamers, but setting these restrictions makes for a challenging contest for both sides, rewarding good planning and encouraging the taking of calculated risks. Turtling may preserve your forces, but it will cost you the game.

This doesn’t signal the end of the line for A Time for Heroes. M. Roig has been showing off – sorry, demonstrating – a playtest version of the next game in the series, handling the battle of Austerlitz. Just take my money now.

Official pic of the box art for the boardgame version of Waterloo Solitaire,
depicting "The Defence of Hougoumont," by Denis Dighton.

Waterloo Solitaire Boardgame (Worthington Publishing, 2023)

This is probably the most imminent of my anticipated games for 2026, not the least as it was published in 2023. Waterloo Solitaire Boardgame is a reimplementation of Worthington’s popular book-game, Waterloo Solitaire (Worthington Publishing, 2021). I debated backing the Kickstarter campaign for the boardgame version but demurred. Having regretted that decision for some time, when I came into some “found cash” selling some RPG materials, I ordered a copy during Worthington’s Massive Holiday Sale (a case of putting my money where my mouth is), which is still tunning at time of writing.

The Waterloo Solitaire Boardgame replicates and streamlines the book game experience, replacing event tables with cards and using wooden blocks for the units. While it’s purely solitaire, you can play either the French Armée du Nord under Napoleon or the combined forces of La Belle Alliance under Wellington.

Given the vagaries of the US Postal Service, I’m unlikely to see this much before February, but I’m at peace with that. If there’s one thing our shared hobby teaches us often (especially those of us in the Antipodes), it’s the value of patience.

 

* Beyond a couple of snapshots on Facebook, Napoleon 1870 doesn't exist as far as the World Wide Web is concerned. When asked, Denis Sauvage said Shakos hoped to have a crowdfunding campaign running in the Spring of 2024. Obviously this hasn't yet happened, but when it does, you'll be able to read about it here.

 

 

Stripped Down for Parts: In the Shadows

 

 

When I first heard about In the Shadows: Resistance in France, 1943-1944 (GMT Games, 2025), I was intrigued. The Resistance operations throughout occupied Europe in the Second World War had a pivotal role in the planning and execution of the liberation efforts of the Allies, providing information on German troop movements and strengths, engaging in sabotage of crucial transport infrastructure leading up to Operation Overlord. It was dangerous work; for anyone who was arrested or captured by the occupying force or the Vichy security forces in the south, the best for which they could hope was a quick death by firing squad. More likely, they would be interrogated and  likely tortured for days or weeks before facing the same fate. It's a compelling chapter in the history of World War II, but how do you capture all of that in a game?

In the Shadows was born out of a challenge. The first ConSim Game Jam in 2020 challenged participants to come up with a new game using the components from an existing COIN game in a weekend. Dan Bullock, Chris Bennett, and Joe Schmidt took a copy of Falling Sky: the Gallic Revolt Against Caesar (GMT Games, 2016) and repurposed the map of Gaul to represent 1940s France, creating the bare bones of that we are looking at today.

The box art sets the tone for the game. The cover picture is a drawing, presumably rendered by the estimable Terry Leeds who is credited with the art and layout of the game. The picture is of two Resistance fighters hiding (literally) in the shadows, observing an oblivious German Gestapo officer smoking a cigarette (careful, those things will kill you). The box is two inches deep and sturdy in construction. 

Box back.

Turning over to the back of the box, we get a precis of the situation and a brief description of how the game plays out. There are pictures of the map-board, sample cards, markers and tokens, and a list of components. The game is recommended for ages fourteen and up (of course), is suitable for one or two players (with a parenthetical note that it includes a dedicated solitaire system, confirmed by the presence elsewhere of the GMT One logo), and that a session will play out in around 45 minutes. The Difficulty is rated at Three of a possible nine, with top marks going to the game’s Solitaire Suitability on the basis of the aforementioned solitaire system.

The two-player rules; clear and concise.

In the Shadows can be played as a two-player game or as a solitaire experience. In fact, it really should be thought of as two games in one, each with its own rulebook. The two-player rulebook runs to sixteen pages, but the actual rules eight of those, with the cover, Introduction and component spread taking up the first three, another four pages devoted to historical and designers’ notes, and the back cover presenting a table explaining the Resolution Card Icons (we’ll come bask to the cards later).

2P rules sample page. Both rulebooks have lots of helpful illustrations.

The eight pages of rules themselves include lots of helpful illustrations. Both rulebooks are printed on a familiar weight of matt-finish paper, but a pleasant buff colour (close to a manilla folder in shade) has been used here, in keeping with the overall forties visual ascetic of the project.

The Solitaire rulebook (like it says on the cover).

The solitaire rulebook also runs to sixteen pages, of which thirteen are rules, though if you take out the theme-building photographic illustrations, it’s probably closer to ten pages of rules and pictorial examples. In the solitaire game, you play the Resistance, and your opponent is the Occupation Bot. You’ll be undertaking the actions for the Occupation Bot; it’s a fairly transparent algorithm, but it’s portraying a fairly rigid, bureaucratic system of regimented control, so that seems to be a good fit. The event cards will dictate what the Bot does on its turn, and there’s a robust table to decide its preferences (helpfully printed on the back page of the rules). At time of writing, I haven’t played either the solo or two player versions of the game, but they look to be similar experiences but not quite the same; separate paths to the same destination.

The map-board. It incorporates all the tracks and such. Both practical
and visually engaging.

The mounted board offers a playing area – a map of France – as well as various tracks for tracking rounds, Occupation Authority and Resources, and Resistance Operations.  The Map of France is divided into three areas, called “Districts”; Northern and Western occupied Fance, and Vichy France (the region of nominal self-government). Each region is itself subdivided into four “Zones”, each designated with an identifying reference number. The board, like everything else in the box, evokes the period. The map uses the muted colour-palette and fading effects popular in Western Continental propaganda poster art of the era. In the Shadows is by no means a space hog; the board is only 11” by 17”, and maybe another six inches on all sides will provide plenty of space for setting up the game for either a solo or two-player game.  

Two PACs: no waiting.

The game comes with two duplicate Player Aid Cards, printed on a good weight card in a low sheen. One side assists the Resistance player, the other the Occupation player. The cards are well laid out and quite readable, offering everything the players will need to reference for the two-player game, or as the Resistance in the solitaire game.

In the Shadows comes with two wrapped decks of cards, 82 cars in all. Forty-eight cards make up the two sets for the two-player game, while the remaining 34 make up the three sets for the solitaire game. I don’t normally d this in an unboxing, but I think it’s worth looking at the types of cards used in the games as these go a long way to demonstrating how the two games work.

Event cards. Red title banners denote Resistance events,
grey banners, Occupation events.

The Event cards are the heart of the two-player game. These introduce both some randomness and provide the economy for player actions. It’s a functionally elegant system.

At the start of the game, the players draw two Event cards. Each player will play one card face down, and both reveal simultaneously. These are played consecutively for their events (if the event favours the opposing player, they play out the event) and their Action points. The player holding the higher Action point-value card has the initiative; with ties, the Resistance player decides who goes first.

Resolution cards - providing somewhat random results for your committed actions.
Combat was a newsletter distributed by the French Resistance during the
Occupation; Le Petite Parisien was a Paris newspaper co--opted by
the Germans and used as a propaganda vehicle.

When push comes to shove, the action is resolved by drawing from the Resolution deck. There are five actions – three Resistance and two Occupation – that, when committed, will be resolved by a Resolution card draw. No dice, which won’t sit well with some gamers, but there you have it.

Persona cards.

As I mentioned earlier, the solitaire game is practically a separate game, played on the same board, tokens and markers, but it comes with its own cards and works differently enough, I think, to warrant consideration as a separate game.

First, the player chooses a Persona card. There are four from which to choose, each representing a major faction among the French resistance movement during the occupation, and each offers a different kind of benefit in gameplay, but also a unique secondary victory condition. This adds to the replayability of the solo game right out of the box.

Solitaire Event cards. 

As mentioned earlier solitaire game is played against the Occupation Bot. A separate Solitaire Event Deck is included in the game to accommodate the Occupation Bot. As in the two-player game, the Resistance player draws up to a two-card and plays one, while the Occupation Bot plays the next card off the deck. The same initiative rules apply, and the Occupation Bot’s decision hierarchy is helpfully reproduced on the back cover of the solitaire rules.

Location cards. More going on here than I have yet ascertained. 

A deck of Location cards matches the twelve zones into which the France map is divided. This deck is used to decide the location of some actions undertaken by the Occupation bot.

Markers and wooden pieces. Quite a few wooden pieces.

A roughly 7” by 5” punchboard brings the 24 markers used in the game. These are pre-rounded easy-punch counters (some more pre-rounded than others). These are used to track the progress or otherwise on the gameboard’s status tracks and rondel and mark the alertness of the Occupation forces in particular regions.

Inside the box. The game comes with more baggies than this;
these are just the ones I hadn't got to using yet.

Finally, In the Shadows comes with a box insert of uncommonly practical design. These are specifically designed for shipping purposes, to stop the flat bits (map sheets, counter sheets, rules, player aids – you get the idea) from getting bent or the corners banged up in transit. Often these get ditched to accommodate counter trays and such. In the case of In the Shadows, the insert is the perfect size to keep the board, rulebooks and PACs flat in the box, while perfectly accommodating the cards, markers and wooden tokens without hiding some under one or both of the box-ends. I know opinions are divided on this topic, but for what it’s worth, I’ll be keeping mine intact.

-----

In the Shadows promises to be a brief but compelling experience. I’m not going to engage with the inevitable “But is it a wargame?” discussions. Not here, at any rate. I will reiterate that it should provide both an interesting diversion that doesn’t outstay its welcome, which is our raison d'être here at Un jeu rapide. I should have an AAR of one or the other mode of play inside of a fortnight. Be sure to check in again.