Kris Hall: Brad Stock and Pursuit of Glory

Today I continue my series of interviews with designers of card-driven wargames.  Today’s guest is Brad Stock, designer of Pursuit of Glory, a game about World War One conflict in the near east.

Kris: You have a Ph.D. in strategy. What exactly does that mean?

Brad: I earned my PhD at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. My primary studies were in the International Security Studies Program, and the subject of my dissertation was “Ethics and Strategy in Foreign Policy: Building a Stable Peace.” It was a broad examination of basic strategic theory, an examination of post-Cold War strategies, and an outline of the dynamics confronting us in the post-Cold War era.

Kris: I believe the word most commonly used to describe the Near East conflict in the First World War is “sideshow.” What is about the conflict that inspired you to design a game?  What impact would a Central Powers victory in this theater have on the war as a whole?  What impact would an Allied victory have?

Brad: Sideshow was indeed the term used to describe pretty much every conflict in a region outside France, Italy, and Eastern Europe.  This led to the key debate amongst British strategists and politicians—the Westerners vs the Easterners.  The latter, led principally by Lloyd George, saw the key to victory lying in the east, rather than throwing British soldiers into the meatgrinder on the Western front.  Ultimately, the Allied invasion at Salonika did succeed in liberating Serbia and driving Bulgaria out of the war.  This was the last coffin in Austria-Hungary’s coffin and cut off all supplies to the Turks.  Once the Danube valley was open to Allied invasion, the Germans realized that they must surrender, and did so within a few days, despite the fact that German lines still lay well inside France.

I had little interest in World War One until I played Paths of Glory and begin to understand the historic and strategic dynamics of the multiple theaters. The one part of that game which always perplexed me was the small inset map for the Near East.  I did not know the history in that area at all, except for some basic knowledge about Lawrence of Arabia. So, I decided to enlarge that corner of the map and examine the history of that region in greater detail.  This became especially interesting in light of the US invasion of Iraq.

The Central Powers sought to control the region for several reasons.  They would love to cut the British off from the Suez Canal and foment a Muslim rebellion in Egypt, thereby forcing the British into a longer journey to India.  Once the Germans completed the Berlin-Baghdad railway, they would actually be able to ship troops from Germany to the gateways of India more quickly than the British could ship troops there by sea.  The Germans hoped to utilize Mesopotamia as a colonial area, and the oil interests in the region were of great importance to the Royal Navy and potentially of increasing interest to the German military and economy.  For similar reasons—including the control of Constantinople (which was promised to the Russians) and control of oil, the Allies would happily drive the Ottomans from the region.  To this was added some religious interests, including British commitments to the Zionists and the Anglo-Israel desire to liberate Jerusalem.

All of this boils down primarily to control of oil and access to India (or a warm sea port and outlet to the Mediterranean for the Russians).

Kris: Describe the nations involved in the Pursuit of Glory theater for those of us who haven’t read a history of World War One recently.

Brad: The principal contestants were Russia, Britain, and Turkey (the Ottoman Empire). The Russians and Ottomans were traditional enemies, fighting for control of all the areas around the Black Sea, including the Caucasus region and the Balkans. Russia saw itself as the protector of traditional Ottoman enemies in these areas, including Serbia, Romania, and Armenia. The British were actually traditional Ottoman allies, until the Young Turks seized control of the Ottoman Empire and allied with Germany.

Kris: Will Paths of Glory fans be able to link Pursuit of Glory to their Paths of Glory game?

Brad: We have no current plans to do this, but are aware of the interest and open to exploring the idea.  In theory it should be do-able.  All it would require is a method for substituting actions in Pursuit of Glory for the Paths of Glory Near East inset map. The most complicated aspect would be knowing how to interface cards in Paths of Glory for actions in Pursuit of Glory.  Not a problem in game design which I have really yet tried to resolve. Maybe some other player will suggest a method which we can publish in GMT’s magazine, C3I.

Kris: What changes or innovations have you made to the Paths of Glory system to make it suitable for your game?

Brad: The biggest change is the addition of the Jihad Level.  Historically, the Germans and Ottomans tried quite hard to foment rebellion and uprisings in a holy war.  Many tribes rebelled against the British or Russians, and there was a possibility of Indian and Egyptian military mutinies.  As the Jihad Level rises, various tribes join the CP cause and the odds of a successful revolt or alliance with Afghanistan rises, eventually putting enormous pressure on the British in Egypt and India. My adult son, who is co-designer on the game, played a major role in developing this aspect of the game and calculating historical levels of jihad based on the actual events.

The Russian Revolution also gets very different treatment, since there is little that the player in the Near East can do to directly affect the events farther north in main areas of Russia. However, the man who actually lit the fuse of the Revolution was a Russian émigré living in Istanbul, who traveled to Berlin, convinced the Germans to back the revolution, and actually hand-picked Lenin as its leader.  In Pursuit of Glory, the players do have some control over the timing of the revolution—the better the Russians do compared to history (in terms of capturing Victory Points), the later the revolution will occur; the better the Ottomans do, the sooner the revolution will occur.  This sets up an enormous amount of tension, as you watch the revolution draw near, almost ignite, and then be pushed back yet one more turn.  Once the revolution does occur, and the Russian armies begin to evaporate, this opens up an enormous wealth of victory point cities in Russia and Persia for which the players must race. Oil also plays a role, including the British leased oil wells and pipeline in Persia.

Since the game is a close-up examination of one sector of the Paths of Glory board, it requires that we look at units on a smaller scale (Corps and Divisions, instead of Armies and Corps). This then led us to look at some differentiation between units, which was an idea explored on a smaller scale already in the original Paths of Glory—here we have elite infantry, cavalry, HQs, plus some other special units, such as CP Heavy Artillery, camel corps, armored car divisions, etc. The players may also organize divisions into Corps (combining two or three divisions into a larger, more powerful unit.)

Kris: What are some of the more important events in your card decks?  Does Lawrence of Arabia play a part in the game?

Brad: Lawrence has a card, which must be played before one can trigger the Arab Revolt.  Lawrence also appears again in a slightly veiled capacity—the “Take No Prisoners” card, which passes back and forth between the players, simulating a whole ‘eye for an eye’ aspect of tribal warfare in the region.  The unit with which Lawrence was principally associated (with Feisal) has an unknown defensive capability, which changes from combat to combat, making it unique, elite defensive unit under Lawrence’s leadership.

Other important cards include cards which give players control of political factions in neutral Persia (resulting in control of VP cities), Jihad, Kitchener (which allows the British to begin shipping aid to Russia), Churchill Prevails (which allows the British to bombard and perhaps destroy the forts around Gallipoli, running the fleet up to Constantinople), several key invasion cards (including Gallipoli), King Constantine (which may postpone Greece’s alliance with the Allies or even bring Greece into the war as a Turkish ally), Allenby (which brings in a powerful British HQ and new units, as well as allowing the Allied player to use some powerful combat cards), Robertson (which signifies the possible outcome in British politics, with the Westerners winning the policy debate and beginning to withdraw troops from the Near East and sending them back to France), British War Weariness (which allows the Ottomans to win more easily as the British gradually grow tired of the sideshow and wish they could go kill Germans in France). There are lots of powerful combat cards—such as The Russian Winter Offensive, which succeeded in the midst of the snows of the Caucasus; “Jerusalem by Christmas” allows the Allied player to declare his intention to capture a holy city within the next two turns—success is rewarded, failure punished, in the public’s eye; “Haversack Ruse” was a clever ploy by the head of British intelligence in the Near East (Meinertzhagen) who rode towards Ottoman lines, allowed himself to be shot at, faked being wounded, and ‘dropped’ a bloody haversack containing fake military plans, which caused the Turks to redeploy their troops—Allenby then attacked where the Turks were not!

Kris: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Allied and Central Powers sides?

Brad: The Ottomans begin strong in the region and have interior lines of communication, which allows them to shift troops between fronts (although the poor rail and road networks makes this somewhat difficult). They also have the ability to use the jihad to raise up tribal units behind enemy lines and perhaps even to bring whole countries into the war against the Russians and British. The Ottomans also have the opportunity for opening up a rail line to Germany, along which massive quantities of aid can flow.  The Russians are strong and can gain a strong foothold in neutral Persia, opening a road into Mesopotamia, where they can link with the British.  The British forces (including Indian and ANZAC units) grow stronger and stronger, until they have a decisive military advantage.  The British also have the Royal Navy, which allows them to descend upon the Ottoman coast.

Brad: Will the game have more than one scenario?  What will be the playing time of the stand-alone game?

Brad: There is a Campaign Game and a Total War game (which begins in Summer 1916, when things are just about ready to really heat up).  I plan on developing a short Limited War scenario, which would end in Spring 1916). I am not exactly sure on game time, since the games can end at earlier or later dates.  I would guess that a full-length game between experienced players would take about 5 or 6 hours.  The Total War scenario should take 2 or 3 hours, I would estimate.

Kris: What was the biggest difficulty you had designing the game?  What was the biggest joy?

Brad: The lack of authoritative information on all aspects of the war in the Near East. It took MUCH longer than anticipated to research the war, including units and deployments.  The biggest joy was the realization that we are succeeding in simulating the dynamics of the conflict in that region—it is tense, nail-biting, and also incredibly bizarre, but historically accurate.  And it is fun!

Kris: When is the game likely to be published?

Brad: We are almost past the initial 500 pre-orders required to get the game on the publication list. I don’t know how long GMT would take to actually publish the game after that, but I would hope it might be available for Origins (June 2008), although I would guess that Christmas 2008 is more likely.

Kris: What future projects would you like to work on?

Brad: I used to work at Parker Brothers (back in the days when Alan Moon was there), and I would like to design a Eurogame next—something that would be much quicker to design and not require much historical research. I don’t want to say what the subject is at this point, since the game depends on the uniqueness of the subject.  Suffice it to say, that it is based in a very different region in the world, and is largely economic and political in nature. I am already working on the beginnings of another Paths of Glory sequel, covering the Russian and Italian fronts—working title is: Ends of Glory.  It would focus especially on the potential for social unrest, revolution, military mutinies, etc., leading to national collapse.

Kris:Thank you for the interview.  Good luck with the game.

In two weeks I will probably interrupt this series to have an interview with Travis Reynolds who will talk about Charcon, the game con in Charleston, West Virginia.  Then two weeks after that, I will continue the card-driven gamer series with an interview with Ted Raicer about his upcoming eastern front game Stalin’s War.

Comments: