Interview with Maurice Suckling Designer of Operation Barclay from Salt & Pepper Games Currently on Gamefound

Salt & Pepper Games has done a series of great little historical games over the past couple of years. The first game that caught our attention was Resist! designed by the triumvirate of David Thompson, Roger Tankersley and Trevor Benjamin, which is a solitaire game where the player controls the guerilla forces of the Spanish Maquis. Although they got their start during the Spanish Civil War, the game is primarily about the Maquis’ exploits after the end of WWII, when the Maquis returned to Spain and attempted to liberate the country from the despotic fist of Franco. We also enjoyed their follow-up effort with designers Matthias Cramer and Engin Kunter with the 2-player game The Hunt, which is an asymmetric card driven game that pits the British Royal Navy against the German Kriegsmarine in the South Atlantic led by the Graf Spee. The hidden movement in this one and the cat-and-mouse hunt is really very interesting and the game can be decided by a large combat at the historical River Plate.

There newest offering is called Operation Barclay and deals with the intelligence war between the Allies and their Abwehr counterparts in the Mediterranean Theater of WWII from 1942-1943. Also, the game is designed by Maurice Suckling who has done a string of very interesting and very good wargames over the past 5 years. We reached out to Maurice to get a bit more information on the game ahead of the Gamefound campaign with one of our designer interviews and he was more than happy to oblige.

If you are interested in Operation Barclay, you can get more information from the Gamefound campaign project page at the following link: https://gamefound.com/en/projects/saltandpepper/operation-barclay#/section/project-story

Grant: Welcome back Maurice. What is your upcoming game Operation Barclay about?

Maurice: Operation Barclay was the umbrella term for the deception operations enacted to support Operation Husky – the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943. At the end of 1942, after ejecting the Axis armies from North Africa, Allied military intelligence agencies attempted to deceive Axis military intelligence over where the Allied armies would strike next. These deceptions attempted to feed the Axis disinformation to make them think the primary offensive would be elsewhere – other than Sicily – in the Mediterranean.

Grant: What is the historical setting of the game and how does the situation dictate the game?

Maurice: The game is set in January 1943 and lasts until the end of June 1943 – Operation Husky launches July 9. German military intelligence – the Abwehr – has six months, which is six rounds in the game, to discover the locations of the Allies’ primary and secondary offensives. Allied intelligence – coordinated by the London Controlling Section (LCS) – a deliberately obscure and bland name to obfuscate its identity and purpose – has the same amount of time to deceive the Abwehr.

Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?

Maurice: I was reading about General Montgomery, and learnt that he was associated with the British 12th Army at one point. As you might know, what’s most striking about the British 12th Army is that it never existed – it was a fictional order of battle, a creation of Dudley Clarke, a British brigadier and pioneer of military deception operations who was based in Cairo. 

I was already aware of Operation Mincemeat, from the 2021 movie and the 2010 BBC TV series from Ben Macintryre’s book. But as I read more I began to understand how that operation – where a dead body was floated off the coast of Spain with documents showing a bogus Allied invasion plan to attack through the Balkans – was part of a much larger deception scheme and a part of a whole military intelligence war.

In historical games we tend to focus on military history and this usually means kinetic warfare. Yet here we have a topic certainly part of military history, but a story about military intelligence, and it’s – to my knowledge – untouched in games, and it’s a story full of bravery and cunning – a story about bluff, counterbluff, and holding your nerve. What’s not to like about that?

Grant: What is your design goal with the game?

Maurice: The main goal was to bring the story to light – to make people think beyond the kinetic aspects of war (and some of the other elements that contribute to kinetic friction) – and to give players a sense of the historical actors and their respective objectives, resources, and pressures. I also wanted to capture something of the essence of this story in game form – so players could feel it, not just read about it.

If the game also helps designers and players think about other kinds of history we can model, beyond kinetic warfare, then that’s great too.

Grant: What other designs inspired you in making this game?

Maurice: When I decided what I wanted to do with my game I began looking around to see what else there was in this area. I found John Prados had designed a game called Bodyguard Overlord (1994) published by Spearhead Games that was focused on the intelligence war and the D-Day landings, but I wasn’t able to find a copy to play. I watched some playthrough videos and knew I didn’t want to tackle the combination of intelligence war and operational warfare that it seemed to model. For playability I wanted a much narrower focus than that on my game.

After more thought and reflection on the focus, and when I finally realized that what I really wanted was a metaphor for the intelligence war, my thoughts turned to the card game poker and then to Reiner Knizia’s Battle Line (2000) from GMT Games. These games were very formative in my design approach to making Operation Barclay appear to be a simple trick taking game, but to really be more about betting on which side has the best hand – and to then work to try to deceive people into thinking your hand is far better than it appears, or far worse.

Grant: What elements from the intelligence struggle in WWII do you need to model in the design?

Maurice: With regards to modeling the intelligence war in the Mediterranean in early 1943 what a designer really needs to consider is the perspectives of the principal actors. This really means asking:

• How did it feel for these principal actors?
• What were their objectives?
• What was the timespan and what’s the sense of scale we plan to approach this topic through, and what’s the broad approach?
• What were the key resources they had at their disposal?

By way of brief answers to these questions:

• It must have felt tense. The principal actors involved have not left much source material for us to explore, but a read or watch of The Man Who Never Was, the 1953 book by Ewan Montagu (of Operation Mincemeat fame), or the 1956 movie based on it you will get some sense of this. The work of Ben Macintryre also gives some sense of the emotions in play.
• The Allies hoped to mislead the Axis that there were other possible options for the invasion of southern Europe – not just Sicily, but also Southern France, Corsica/Sardinia, the Balkans/Peloponnese, and the Dodecanese. The Axis hoped to discover the truth, and to mislead about what they knew.
• Operation Barclay began in early 1943, with the timeline for Husky in early July already set. The scale the game approaches the topic through is at the director level, and in a highly abstracted way, such that a game will be easy to learn and playing it takes about 30 minutes.
• Each intelligence agency had networks of spies, some operating in larger clusters, right across the Mediterranean, some of them double agents, some of them attempted double agents, and their allegiance not always clear, working and coordinating together with their own administrative and institutional personnel. Other resources included reconnaissance and raid capabilities, and the capacity to counter these resources. In addition, the Allies had Ultra – they had broken the German Enigma code by December 1941, and the Germans did not know this – although there was some suspicion.

Grant: What sources did you consult to get the details correct? What must read source would you recommend?

Maurice: This is a bibliography of the major works consulted on this topic:

Brown, Anthony, Cave. 1975. Bodyguard of Lies: The Extraordinary True Story Behind D-Day. New York: Harper & Row.

Crowdy, Terry. 2008. Deceiving Hitler. Oxford: Osprey.

Fry, Helen. 2023. Women in Intelligence: The Hidden Story of Two World Wars. Cambridge, MA: Yale University Press.

Hinsley, F. H.; Stripp, Alan, (Eds.) 1993. Codebreakers: The inside story of Bletchley Park, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holt, Thaddeus. 2004. The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War. New York: Scribner. 

Lewin, Ronald. (Ed.) 2001. Ultra goes to War. London: Penguin Group.

Rein, Christopher, M. (Ed.) 2018. Weaving the Tangled Web: Military Deception in Large-Scale Combat Operations. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Army University Press.

Smyth, Denis. 2010. Deathly Deception: The Real Story of Operation Mincemeat. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Macintyre, Ben. 2010. Operation Mincemeat. New York: Harmony.

Winks, Robin W. 1996. Cloak & Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939–1961. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

There isn’t a single book dedicated to Operation Barclay alone that I know of. But I do recommend the chapter by Gregory S. Hospodor in the Weaving the Tangled Web collection and the relevant chapter in Denis Smyth’s Deadly Deception. If you do want a full book experience Ben MacIntyre’s is a good read – although its focus is clearly on Mincemeat, rather than Barclay.

Grant: How do players achieve victory?

Maurice: To win, the Abwehr player is attempting to discover which of the 5 possible invasion sectors actually have planned invasions, and which ones are deceptions. There will be one primary offensive sector, one secondary, and three deceptions. If the Abwehr player doesn’t win before time runs out (before Operation Husky is launched) the LCS player wins.

To discover which routes are real and which ones are deceptions, the Abwehr player must turn over enough of the right Intelligence tokens.

Grant: What is the makeup of the game board?

Maurice: Here’s the board:

The first thing to note is the 5 possible invasion sectors – with a different color for each sector. Each sector has 5 spaces. The LCS player is going to place Intelligence tokens face-down on each of these 25 spaces. The LCS player has a specific set up to conduct:

• They choose one sector to be the primary offensive sector, and place 4 tokens with a green spot on the face-up side, and place them face down.
• They choose one sector to be the secondary offensive sector, and place 3 tokens with a green spot on the face-up side, and place them face down.
• In the other three sectors they place 2 tokens with a green spot on the face-up side, and place them face-down.
• In the remaining 12 spaces the remaining Intelligence tokens (all red spot on the face-up side) are all placed face-down:

The Abwehr player is going to attempt to discover which sector is the primary, and which is the secondary invasion sector.

Top right there’s a calendar track to count down the game clock.

Bottom left is related to the Evidence tokens.

Bottom right is related to the Intelligence Assessment tokens.

Grant: Can you tell us more about the Intelligence tokens? How do they work?

Maurice: The Abwehr player has 6 game rounds to win the chance to flip the Intelligence tokens face-up. If this player gets the right tokens flipped – or enough of the wrong ones – they can prove where the primary and secondary invasion routes are.

To win the chance to flip Intelligence tokens the Abwehr player needs to win Evidence tokens.

Grant: How do players win Evidence tokens?

Maurice: Each game month the 6 Evidence tokens are drawn from a bag, with 2 being placed in the Alpha box, 3 in the Beta box, and 1 in the Reconnaissance/Raids box. The different Evidence tokens correspond to the 5 different sectors, with the 6th token being a ‘wild card’ that can be used for any one sector.

The player who has the best hand wins the 2 Evidence tokens in the Alpha box.

The player who bets correctly on who will have the best hand wins the 3 Evidence tokens in the Beta box.

The player who has the most Reconnaissance or Raids tokens on their cards wins the 1 Evidence token in that box.

The Abwehr player can only turn over an Intelligence token that corresponds with the sector color of the Evidence tokens they win.

Evidence tokens don’t help the LCS player, other than preventing the Abwehr player from using them.

Grant: So what are Intelligence Assessment tokens?

Maurice: Part of the way through the game’s ‘month’, players will bet on who they think is going to have the best hand by the end of the month. When players make this bet they place an Intelligence Assessment token face-down, then carry on playing for a little longer. At the end of the month players flip their Assessment tokens face-up – and discover who bet on whom.

At the heart of the game is the card play which determines the best hands, and resolves the bets on the best hands.

Grant: What different types of cards are there?

Maurice: There are 3 decks of cards, and a fourth forms during the game.

There is a joint deck of cards called the Intelligence Channels deck – here’s an image showing the back of the deck:

There is a deck of cards just for the Allied/LCS player – here’s an image showing the back of the deck:

The game uses the faun image because the LCS kept a replica of the statue on its conference table (it’s a small statue) – symbolic of deception in war.

There is also a deck of cards just for the Axis/Abwehr player – here’s an image showing the back of the deck:

The fourth deck forms from the Intelligence Channels deck.

Grant: Can you share a few examples of the cards with us?

Maurice: Here are a few examples of different cards found in the Intelligence Channels deck:

This deck comprises 5 suits, all numbered 1-12, with the 1 also being a 13, so players can choose its value later on.

Here are a couple of examples from the LCS deck:

Here are a couple of examples from the Abwehr deck:

The LCS and Abwehr decks comprise 13 cards each (rising to 16 in the exclusive promo set available on launch), and these should be thought of as special cards – cards that give a range of different abilities – allowing players to modify their hand in various ways.

Grant: How does the tableau building aspect work? What are players trying to build?

Maurice: Players are attempting to build the best hand they can.

These hands are like poker, but not identical, because the probabilities are different.

Players play 3 cards face-up – Abwehr player first, followed by the LCS player in sequence.

Then they play their Intelligence Assessment tokens face-down.

Then they play 2 cards face-down – Abwehr player first, followed by the LCS player in sequence.

Then players reveal all cards and discover who has the best hand, and who bet correctly on this.

So, taking tricks is important. But it’s more important who thinks who is going to have the best hand. And even more important than that, is betting correctly when the other player bets incorrectly, so misdirection becomes a central concern.

Grant: What is the Double-Cross Deck? How is it built, and what purpose does it serve?

Maurice: The Double-Cross deck forms through the use of certain cards from the Intelligence Channels deck (the 5s, 6s, and 7s in each suit) during the course of the game.

When these cards are played face-up (before the Assessment tokens are placed) players draw 2 cards from the top of Intelligence Channels draw pile, look at them, place 1 in hand, and 1 face-down on top of the Double-Cross deck.

In addition, the 1/13s, 11s, and 12s in each suit allow players to go into the Double-Cross deck, look at the top 3 cards and rearrange them.

Because players can choose to bring a new card into their hand each turn from the top of the joint Intelligence Channels deck, or their own unique deck, or from the top of the Double-Cross deck, players may attain an information advantage from a fortunate and skillful use of the Double-Cross deck. 

This is my – very light and low rules overhead way – of simulating double agents – where their loyalty is uncertain.

Grant: What is the LCS ULTRA CARD?

Maurice: This card represents some aspect of the information advantage the Allies had. The LCS player can – once per game – if they play this card – see the Abwehr Assessment token before they play their own.

(Yes, that’s Bletchley Park, near Milton Keynes in the UK, on the card – where the Enigma code was broken. It’s a fascinating place to visit.)

Grant: How does a player have to use logic and deduction in the game?

Maurice: Well, players don’t have to use logic – if they turn over the right Intelligence tokens they can see where the green spot tokens are, and find what they need to win. This is luck, but the more Evidence tokens they win, the more likely it is that the Abwehr player will win – the luck will matter less.

But it’s possible that the Abwehr player will flip a range of green and red spot tokens, and this can mean it’s possible to deduce where the green spot tokens must be, even if they haven’t been flipped. If the Abwehr player can use logic to prove which sector must have 4 green spot tokens, and which sector must have 3 green spot tokens they will win the game.

Grant: What do you feel the design excels at?

Maurice: I think – in a short amount of time, both to learn and play – it delivers a whiff of the story of Operation Barclay.

I think it carries a sense of tension, as the game culminates and the Abwehr player gets close to what they need. That’s to say I think it’s paced well.

I also think it carries a sense of deception, as players are incentivized to be the only one to bet correctly. So I think it’s a card game – a trick taking game – that excels in not actually being about having the  best hand or taking the tricks – but in betting and deceiving the other player about who is going to have the best hand.

Grant: What type of experience does the game create?

Maurice: I hope it creates a sense of tension as you seek to deceive the other player – hoping you can feed them disinformation without them spotting that’s what it is.

I hope it works for people looking for a 2-player 30 minute game.

Grant: Who is the artist for the game? How has their work connected with your design to create an improved theme?

Maurice: Meeple Foundry is the company behind the art. This is a small studio specializing in board game localization and visual development. Diana and Samuel are in charge of the translation, graphic design and art direction, and they are based in Malaga (Southern Spain), and Andrea and Carlos are the illustrators and they are based in Lima (Peru). Since 2018 the Meeple Foundry team has worked on well-known projects such as Barrage, Tainted Grail, Bitoku, Moonrakers, España 1936, Imperium, Marvel Dice Throne, and The White Castle. When it comes to illustration and artwork exclusively, they have developed games such as Blind Business, Winter & Autumn, 3 Reinos, Gluons, and Take a Seat. They were also in charge of the graphic design on the latter, for the same publisher as Operation Barclay – Salt & Pepper Games, as well as for their games Resist! and Witchcraft (on which Albert Monteys was the artist).

The work of Meeple Foundry has helped to humanize the game’s concept, and helped players to see people within the story, not just the mathematics and mechanics. I think, in turn, this will help the game reach a broader audience. For some of the people involved, such as Elvira Chaudoir (Agent Bronx), and Joan Saunders this might the first time these people have ever been depicted in illustration form.

Grant: What other designs are you currently working on?

Maurice: I have a few other things on the boil.

For Fort Circle I’m co-designing a game with Bill Sullivan, Nathaniel Berkley, and S.P. Shaman, called Peace 1905 on the Treaty of Portsmouth. This is the game you and Alexander played in San Diego last November. We’re applying the finishing touches to the 3-player mode.

Here is a link to the video interview we did with Maurice at SDHistCon:

For GMT, I’m co-designing a game with Dan Burt called Rebellion: Britannia on the rebellions in Roman Britain in the first century CE – which includes Boudica’s famous rebellion.

Here is a link to a written designer interview with Maurice: https://theplayersaid.com/2023/01/09/interview-with-maurice-suckling-designer-of-rebellion-britannia-resistance-against-rome-in-1st-century-britain-from-gmt-games/

I have solo designs on Elizabethan spycraft and on the fall of Camelot both at the prototype stage.

I also have a project in early development with Matthias Cramer, and one in early development with Jason Matthews.

Thanks again for your time in answering our questions Maurice and for your great attention to detail and how you explain your design thoughts. This type of explanation is very interesting to players, especially of historical simulations, as they want to know the details and how you are accounting for the history. These details make for a much richer and rewarding play experience and also show that you have thought long and hard about how to model things to replicate that history. Excellent work as always! I very much look forward to playing this game and cannot wait to check out all of your other “work-in-progress” games as well.

If you are interested in Operation Barclay, you can get more information from the Gamefound campaign project page at the following link: https://gamefound.com/en/projects/saltandpepper/operation-barclay#/section/project-story

-Grant