Last year, we played and enjoyed a game from Worthington Publishing called Freeman’s Farm 1777. This game was designed by Maurice Suckling and really forced me to think about these type of wargames a bit differently as I was required to see how troops on a field were affected by and how they could attack and be attacked by their opponent spatially. I also really enjoyed the cards used in that game and the mini economy of Momentum. Since that time, we have interviewed Maurice about another game he is designing that was a successful Kickstarter earlier this year called Chancellorsville 1863. Now he is working on his third design with a partner and we were very interested in reaching out get the scoop on the game ahead of the Kickstarter campaign launch on August 29th.
A word of warning on this interview before you dive in. This game is very different than anything I have encountered in the past and reading through the rules I found it was a bit difficult for me to visualize how this would work. After reading the responses from both Maurice and Dorian on how the game works, I can now say that I understand how it will work and am very interested in the multiple available modes.
If you are interested in Hidden Strike: American Revolution you can get more information by visiting the Kickstarter page at the following link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1456271622/311261307?ref=1p5n7w&token=7e8c3481
*The art used in this interview is near final but may change between now and the final printing of the game. The card examples shown are simply playtest versions intended to share information about the cards.
Grant: What is this new upcoming game called Hidden Strike: American Revolution?
Maurice: It’s a fast-playing, low complexity one to five player game set in, well, you’re probably ahead of me by this point, but – to clarify – it’s a strategic level game.
It uses a new game system that lets players play solo, co-op, semi co-op (with a possible traitor), play 1v1, or 1v2or3.
Grant: What is the name of the game intended to convey about the history?
Maurice: The ‘Hidden Strike’ portion of the name is an attempt to speak to an element of the gameplay – the way in which the game system facilitates a series of largely unpredictable attacks – from the game against the player, from the player against the game, and from a player against other players. The system is an attempt to convey a pervasive fog of war (as well as speed and ease of play, but also some engaging strategic conundrums).
The ‘American Revolution’ just points the player to the subject matter – which is the entirety of the war (at a very high and abstracted level), but also includes some aspects of the political dimensions too.
Grant: Is this the first game in a new series? What other periods are being considered for the series?
Maurice: Absolutely – the ‘Hidden Strike’ part of the title was because we wanted to name the series. All games in the intended series will use the same basic system, but it will be heavily adapted and revised in each case as appropriate.
There’s a Cold War design that’s currently in development which I’m excited about – it has nuclear silos, U2 flights, and a space race element, as well as coups, and proxy wars, amongst other things. Dorian and I have also been talking about a version set in Ancient Rome, but we’ve barely scratched the surface of that so far. We might have to see how well this game is received before we go too far with other ideas, but I’ve certainly got several possible ideas in mind.
Grant: Who is your design partner Dorian Richard? What does she bring to the table?
Dorian: My background is actually in narrative and game design for video games. I worked for various companies like THQ, Atari, and EA and on franchises like D&D and Mission Impossible. But I always loved board games so when the opportunity arose to work for Victory Point Games I jumped on it. One of the titles assigned to me as a developer was “Liberty,” the game that eventually turned into Hidden Strike: American Revolution. And thus the fun collaboration between Maurice and myself began…
Maurice: When the game was signed by Victory Point Games and they assigned Dorian as the developer the game had its basic shape, structure, theme, and many of its recognizable elements – like fleets, grenadiers, scouts, and the Culper Ring.
But Dorian brought a huge amount to the game. She simplified a design element connected with the fleets. You have her to blame for the Hessians. She developed the abilities of the Founding Fathers. She refined the rules with the traitor accusation. She developed the Tiebreaker concept. She also developed two new modes that hadn’t been on my radar – the versus mode (one player versus one player), and the mastermind mode (one player versus two or three players). She gave us the idea that led to incorporating the Publication of Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence, and the Women at War cards. By the time the rights returned to me and Worthington Publishing signed the game I wanted Dorian to still be connected to the project. Then development went through a whole other cycle with lots more changes after that.
We also both come from video game development, as writers and narrative designers, so we’re used to working closely with others. I’m a huge fan of her narrative sensibilities and her ability to quickly parse mechanics. I really enjoy collaborating with Dorian and finding ideas I might never have found on my own. Also – testing is much easier when you have more data that you can work with – and that’s one of the massive advantages to collaborating.
Grant: As you have mentioned, the game has 5 different playable modes. What are these different modes and how are they laid out?
Dorian: As the rules are laid out, the basic version of the game is the Co-op mode in which all players work together to defeat the British forces. The four additional modes are expansions of this mode and each introduces different Founding Fathers and British abilities.
The Traitor mode adds a possible traitor, who will secretly work against the other colonists. Revealing the traitor before they manage to do too much damage is of the essence. In this game if you’re dealt the Benedict Arnold card that doesn’t automatically mean you’re the traitor. It did early on in development, but that changed when we saw other opportunities. Benedict Arnold – as you might expect – has abilities that help him as a combat commander – turning Militia units into Regulars. But each time you use this ability he must draw another card from a Loyalty deck – and each time he does this the chance of him becoming a traitor is increasing (unless someone – unbeknownst to everyone else, is already a traitor).
The Solitaire mode lets players take on the British forces on their own. No easy task but a fun challenge.
Versus and Mastermind allow one player to switch sides and control the British forces. Versus is a one-on-one battle while Mastermind has several American players pitch their forces against one mighty British player.
Grant: How did you have to modify your design to offer all of these different play options?
Dorian: The solitaire mode mainly required the introduction of a Founding Father ability that makes up for the lack of help from other players.
In addition to specific rules for accusations, the tricky part for the Traitor mode was to ensure that a traitor had enough opportunities to secretly sabotage the game without becoming too powerful. Because of his Founding Father ability (promoting a Regular to a Veteran at the cost of just one card, not the usual two) Washington is a particularly dangerous traitor which seemed appropriate – even if a clearly alternative history. We balanced the traitor’s subversion with the fact that Americans win ties if they are able to identify the culprit (by default the British win ties). We also wanted to ensure that the traitor still had a role to play once exposed. We did this by having the player draw the British cards but with an additional ability that only triggers when switching sides. Randomizing this ability – so exposed traitors often have different abilities in each game – makes the reveal slightly more dramatic.
The trickiest design change was to allow a player to take on the part of the British as British troop cards have specific deployment rules that function like a very simple AI (go there if losing or tied, etc.) So the biggest modification was to let a British player ignore some of these deployment rules without giving them too much of an advantage. Another challenge was to balance the British card abilities (think special powers) when in the hands of a human player who now, like the Americans, has several cards to choose from each round (three cards by default) and thus is able to better optimize them. This was mainly done by separating them into general and special abilities with a British player being restricted to general abilities. The biggest change was the introduction of Reserves. Since the British have a large pool of troops that pack a big punch but can only be deployed in a specific region, being able to convert these troops into random, more flexible Reserves was a crucial addition to allow for more strategic decisions.
Grant: Do you feel this many options has added to or taken away from the design?
Dorian: The adaptation of the basic rules for the solitaire and Traitor mode felt pretty organic. Allowing for the addition of a traitor also was a historic must.
Letting a player take over the British forces was a much riskier endeavor and we were prepared to abandon it should it require too many modifications (and too much development time). But I was personally itching to switch sides and find out what would happen. Seeing the first playtesters go head-to-head and having a blast was encouraging so we stuck with it. Revising some of the card abilities for a human player (versus pre-written commands) also forced us to reinforce the core differences between the two sides and how controlling them feels quite different.
Luckily we never felt that the additional modes required us to compromise on the basic mode as they mostly expanded on it or gave it a new twist. The only change we ended up making to the cards to accommodate other modes was to differentiate general and special abilities for British troops but we felt that it was well worth it. Hopefully players will feel the same and find these variations enjoyable or at least find one or two that suit their style.
Grant: I see where you think the game is a wargame but a bit abstract. What do you mean by this?
Maurice: The subject matter is the American Revolutionary War – and the focus is clearly the military conflict rather than, for example, the diplomatic, or financial aspects, and it’s resolved through competition, so I definitely think it’s a wargame. But I also think it’s pretty abstract. The strength points don’t correlate to a regulated scale. The timescale is undefined. A region is won by one side reaching 8 points, but being 2 points clear. When a region is won it remains won and can’t be lost. Forces are activated each turn from a deck of cards. These aren’t concrete representations of the forces involved in the war or the ways in which the war unfolded. But the abstract system allows us to represent, at a high level, the conflict over key locations that give us a sense of the overall war.
Grant: What do the different sized and shape pieces represent? Why was this your chosen method to represent troops?
Maurice: We wanted a low barrier of entry for players, so they could easily grasp the meaning of the different units and their values. We also wanted a certain ‘look’ for the game – something clean, visually compelling, and also tactile.
Land pieces comes in three sizes: 10mm cubes, 10mm x 20mm rectangles, and 10mm x 30mm rectangles. These are worth 1, 2, and 3 points respectively.
Fleets just come in one size and shape – a rectangle that’s got a prow.
Here’s the breakdown of the pieces:
– Grenadiers: red 10mm x 20mm rectangles
– Veteran Grenadiers: red 10mm x 30mm rectangles
– Hessians: green 10mm x 20mm rectangles
– Dragoons: yellow 10mm x 20mm rectangles
– Native Americans: purple 10mm x 20mm rectangles
– Loyalist Militia: orange 10mm x 20mm rectangles
– Fleets: red boat shaped rectangles
– Minutemen: light blue 10mm cubes
– Militia: dark blue 10mm cubes
– Native Americas: purple 10mm cubes
– Regulars: dark blue 10mm x 20mm rectangles
– Veterans: dark blue 10mm x 30mm rectangles
– Siege: gray 10mm x 20 rectangle
– Regulars: white 10mm x 20mm rectangles
– Fleets: white boat shaped rectangles
Grant: The board looks fairly interesting. What is the purpose of the layout and the different areas?
Dorian: Ah yes, the board! A very cool and actually late addition. The game was originally designed to be a card game only. Worthington encouraged us to explore the introduction of a board and tokens and let us find our way with it. Though this ultimately required a lot of fine tuning we were immediately excited by the opportunity. First of all, it was visually more fun to have a map instead of six city cards in front of you, and moving tokens instead of playing cards into these cities was a much more tactile and enjoyable experience. But we wanted to board to be more than this. We wanted it to make the game more immersive and help better visualize troop deployments and tactical choices. Blockades in particular became easier to understand once represented with ships on a map and British troops from the Army Force Pool having to cross these ships. It also allowed us to streamline how some of the troops moved.
The six regions currently depicted on the board are an expansion of the original six cities from the card version. These cities are still represented within each region and were chosen based on their strategic importance and some of the key battles fought during the War of Independence.
Grant: What are the different pool areas where tokens start and how is each different?
Dorian: Each side has a general “Army Force Pool” in which troops that have not yet been assigned to a specific region are stationed.
Next to each region are the “Local Force Pools” – which is where the troops are placed that are ready to be deployed into that specific region’s conflict zone.
The main difference between the two types of Force Pools is that troops stationed in a Local Force Pool can only be moved into that region’s conflict zone, or can only be moved to a different region through event cards. Troops in an Army Force Pool can be moved to any region. In some instances, the Local Force Pools can also function as a delay mechanism where a troop from the Army Force Pool must spend a turn in the Local Force Pool before being deployed into the conflict zone.
Both sides also have pools for their fleets, British fleets for the British and Allied fleets for the Americans.
The Americans have a pool for their Allied Army Forces where French, and Spanish troops are stationed.
To further visualize troop movements arrows leading from the various pools depict where troops or fleets can be deployed.
Grant: What types of cards are in the American and British forces decks?
Dorian: The American deck has three types of cards: Troop Cards that allow players to deploy associated troops, Fleet Cards that allow them to deploy fleets and Event Cards that affect the board in other ways like being able to “recruit” a Loyalist to the American side or to move troops from one region to another.
The base British deck is composed of Troop and Fleet Cards only. The Versus and Mastermind mode add the Reserve Deck that deploys new type of troops and includes Event Cards similar to the American Deck.
Grant: Can we see a few examples of these cards and you explain how they work?
Dorian: Here are some examples of British Troop Cards (placeholder art). I mentioned the distinction between general abilities versus special abilities earlier to accommodate having a player take on the British role. In this case text in red depicts a special ability the British player must ignore. The player has other, broader abilities to take advantage of instead like converting cards into Reserves.
If a region is listed on a card the associated troop must be deployed in that region. In this example, the Hessians must be deployed in New England.
Here’s an example of an American Event Card (placeholder art):
Grant: I see that some cards have additional powers referred to as abilities. What are these abilities and can you provide a few examples?
Dorian: Abilities are similar to special powers that come into play when certain troops are deployed. Hessians for example (yeah, you’ll get to hate those guys real quick) have the ability to draw another card when deployed (so it’s a good move to prevent them from deploying in the first place). Grenadiers (you’ll hate those guys too) have the ability to upgrade each other when deployed in the same region. Other troops like the Light Cavalry have the ability to move troops from one region to another. We tried to theme these abilities to each type of troop. Hessians, for example, were known for their aggression and savagery, hence the ability to draw another card.
Grant: I also see that some cards have a secondary ability to deploy a Minutemen troop. What do these cards represent and why would the secondary ability be used rather than the primary?
Dorian: Secondary abilities are usually weaker abilities (mostly to deploy a generic Minutemen). In most cases the more advantageous option is to use the card’s primary ability, but there are instances where this isn’t possible or where deploying a Minutemen is indeed the better move.
It’s a trade-off between a lower point total that can be placed anywhere which might be just want you need sometimes, or a more powerful ability with the means to effect the strategic situation in a more significant way, but needs some elements aligned to get the maximum use of it.
Grant: What is the role of the Founding Fathers Cards?
Dorian: It felt more immersive to let players take on the role of a Founding Father but more importantly, giving each of them a distinct ability made the choice of a Founding Father also strategic. The different abilities also adds replay value – the different combos make for different games each time. Although there isn’t a perfect combo (by design) players may still play off each other’s ability. Finding the right time to use one’s unique ability is of course part of the strategy.
Grant: What is the general flow of the game?
Maurice: Assuming you’re playing the Solo, the Co-op, or the Traitor Mode the basic flow of the game is this:
- Draw the top card of the British deck, and do what it says. Usually this means putting British points (units) into one of the six regions.
- Play one card from your hand of three, and implement the effects. Usually this means putting American points (units) into one of the six regions.
- Draw your hand back up to three cards.
There’s a bit more to it than that – sometimes the British may draw more than one card. Sometimes you might promote units instead of playing a card, and to do this you burn one, or two cards (depending on if you’re promoting a militia to a regular, or a regular to a veteran).
The British Deck has a simple ‘AI’ designed into it – so some units will go to a different region depending on the context of the game – where they are losing, most often, increasing the challenge for the player.
In the Versus and Mastermind Modes the British player has a hand of three cards, and plays one of them – usually putting British points (units) into one of the six regions themselves.
Grant: I see where you have emphasized that knowing when and where to play cards is key. What do you mean by this and what does this mean for players?
Maurice: Okay, this might sound a little weird at first, but bear with me. There’s no actual combat resolution in this game, per se. There’s no dice rolling. Playing cards activates units from force pools and moves them into one of the six regions. To win a region you just need to get 8 points into that region and be 2 points clear of the other side. To win the game you need to win a majority of resolved regions. Often that means 4 out of the 6 regions, but sometimes regions aren’t resolved, no one wins them, so theoretically 1 won region would be enough to win overall, but I’ve never seen this happen.
But knowing when and where to place units is something of a puzzle. The balance and pace of the game means you seldom feel like you’re really in total control of the strategic situation. Some units can only go in certain regions, so there’s an incentive pulling you towards each region – to use those units or lose them. But, usually when units are played into a region you can’t ever get them out again, so there’s a reason to think carefully about where they’re going. You don’t have enough units to win every region, so you have to focus your efforts. Yet the situation rapidly changes (the strikes are hidden, and they can often be fast and effective) and you can find yourself trying to get units back out of regions before you lose them and get them to a region where you can still be competitive.
So the whole game is really about the judicious play of cards – playing the right ones at the right time, in the right places. To deepen the puzzle some cards have multiple uses, so you’re also trying to discern which way to use the right card, at the right time, in the right place.
Grant: What role do British Fleets play in the game? How are blockades used?
Maurice: There are British and Allied fleets.
Allied fleets blockade regions and prevent the British from sending troops from Europe or redirecting them into blockaded regions. If the British can’t send troops into a blockaded region – depending on the specific troop type – they will either redirect to another region, so take longer to get there, or not be activated at all – either of which could be hugely helpful to the American player in securing a region.
British fleets counter-blockade – their simple ‘AI’ will direct them to where the Allies have fleets.
The British also have a Landing Party card that will let them play a Grenadier unit into a region even if it’s under blockade.
If all other regions are resolved and there is just one region left British grenadiers are able to enter it, even if it is under blockade.
Grant: How does each side fight over control of a region? In the end this is an area control game that uses cards. Is that what you would describe it as?
Maurice: It’s about an accumulation of points, and once a region is won, it remains won. Yes – ultimately it’s an area control game that uses cards to activate units. But once units arrive at a region’s conflict zone they don’t fight as such – the competition comes in the form of who can get 8 or more points worth of units into a region (and be two points ahead) first. In a sense, then, you could say the fighting comes in the form of mobilization – it’s a ‘mobilization racer’ (if such a thing exists) – getting there ‘firstest with the mostest’ (in a sense) fundamentally *is* the conflict.
And although an area control game that uses cards isn’t such a bad way to describe this game, I actually prefer to think of it as more of a puzzle/strategy game – trying to figure out how to make the limited resources you’re given work to the best of your ability and to get over the winning line. This might make more sense when you’ve had a chance to play it. Further, in the Traitor Mode – which was the mode that all the rest of the game was originally built around – and is the mode I most hope people get a chance to play – it’s really a game about human psychology. I wanted a system as simple as possible to allow players to enjoy the context of a wargame, and being something rather like a wargame in many ways, but to ensure the real focus for players was on the experience of wondering who – if anyone amongst them – was a traitor, and to give them the (non-definitive) tools for interpreting player actions as either loyal or traitor and all the fun that entails.
Grant: How does the Siege card effect the struggle for regions?
Maurice: This is a card in the American Deck. If it’s played it increases the win condition in that region from the usual 8, to 12 points, and still 2 points clear. It is also worth 2 points to the Americans. It’s a good way to try to keep a region alive and in contention if it looks like you’re about to lose it. It’s better to draw a region than to lose it – as soon as the British win 3 regions there’s no coming back – it’s game over for the Americans. But because it’s also worth 2 points it incentivizes the Americans to try to win the region themselves. The problem is, if they compete for a region that’s under siege they usually have to win that, or they just don’t have enough resources to win in enough other regions to win the game.
In an early playtest I was able (as the Americans, playing solo) to put the Yorktown/Tidewater region under siege and blockade it right near the end of the game, preventing the British from bringing troops in, and I was able to win the game.
In the Versus Mode the Siege card/unit marker also indicates the region that’s a tiebreaker region. In the event of draws across the other resolved regions the winner of this region wins the game overall.
Grant: How is the game won across the different Modes?
Maurice: We mostly covered this – win the majority of resolved regions and you win the game. (Get 8 points in a region and be 2 points clear and you win that region.)
But there can be a little more to it than that in the Traitor Mode. In this mode, if you’re the traitor you win if the British win. There’s also a tiebreaker concept which is particularly relevant in the Traitor and Versus Modes.
Any region that’s not resolved is considered a tie. At the start of a Traitor Mode game the British win all ties. But if you make a correct accusation the Americans win all ties. This is a huge incentive to try to root out the traitor, and a good reason to try to keep it secret if you are the traitor.
In the Versus Mode the winner of the tiebreaker region can also be critical.
Grant: What type of experience does this design provide players as they fight the American Revolution?
Maurice: The game is usually pretty tense, as players work with limited resources to defeat a foe who has more troops, more fleets, and just generally deeper pockets. The help of Allied troops and fleets is certainly key in all this. You usually can’t be certain where the British will strike next, but wherever it is, it will almost certainly be with considerable force. You’ll hope Thomas Paine publishes Common Sense early, and formalizing a Declaration of Independence (especially in conjunction with Common Sense) will certainly help your cause. If the British move fast and control a region before you’ve been able to mobilize your support there, it will just melt away and you won’t be able to draw on it. Mind you – that’s the same with the Loyalists and Native Americans who will side with the British, but only if they’re still in contention in that region. If the British government starts to realize it’s losing that’s also going to dull its appetite for the war and prevent them from sending more troops across the Atlantic. Winning is going to prove tougher if there’s a traitor on the loose. If you ask a lot of Benedict Arnold he will likely get you results but each time the chance of him becoming a traitor usually increases (as he gets exasperated – and not paid). That all sounds like the American Revolutionary War to me.
Here’s the thing – wargames, and games about history are my favorite kind of games to play. But then Co-op games are also my favorite kinds of board games in general. But how is it there are so few Co-op wargames? Or, more importantly, isn’t it time there were more?
I want people to feel that sense of comradery, that sense of companionship a Co-op can give, as they attempt to take on a Goliath together and try to find some way to defeat him.
This game was first designed with a Traitor Mode. In that Mode there might not actually be a traitor, there is just the possibility of one. But this means players spend their time in the game constantly wondering if one of them is that traitor, viewing their moves suspiciously, contemplating an accusation, or perhaps being the traitor, masking their intentions, or figuring out the best time to formally switch sides, or whether to remain hidden.
This game is a direct result of my love of – Battlestar Galactica (2008). I loved the dynamics of the traitor(s) in the game but wanted a faster way into that experience – and wanted to leverage my interest in history/military history.
Grant: What do you believe are the strengths of the design?
Maurice: It’s fast to learn, and to play. There’s also not much of a learning curve between the different modes. I think in a very high level abstract way it gives a flavor of the slice of history in question. I don’t think there’s anything else quite like it, so I think it’s offering players something different.
Grant: What changes have come about through play testing?
Maurice: We’ve tweaked all kinds of things. When I first showed this to people and played it with friends in 2011 players only had a hand of 2 cards – and, as Dorian said, it was then just a card game. This just wasn’t enough for them to feel like they had choices. Founding Father abilities have been through a few iterations, we simplified rules with the fleets and the use of Lafayette, adding the Landing Party card (to give the British a way to overcome blockades) added another ability to Grenadiers (to overcome blockades if there is just one remaining unresolved region), added the ability to move Militia units between Local Force Pools, and the ability to look through the American Deck when promoting units to Veterans). In general there have been lots of balancing tweaks throughout the years. Although it’s sometimes been frustrating how long it’s taken to get this game to market it’s undoubtedly better for all the changes we’ve made, and having a long gestation time in playtesting has been a huge part of that.
Grant: What was your greatest challenge and how was it overcome?
Maurice: Dorian already mentioned it – it was the introduction of the Versus and Mastermind Modes. I was deeply skeptical that it could be done – rather, that it could be done in such a way that the British wouldn’t trounce the Americans too easily – the British generally have 2 point units and the Americans generally 1 point units, so I saw all kinds of ways where this could be not fun for the Americans. But Dorian leaned into it hard and found a way to pull this off without there being blowback to the core design.
Grant: What is the schedule for the Kickstarter campaign?
Maurice: August 29th 2020 is the scheduled launch date.
Grant: What other designs do the two of you have under way?
Maurice: Well, for me, there’s the Hidden Strike: Cold War game I’m making progress with. I’ve also been working with Worthington’s Great Sieges System. Following on from their 1759: The Siege of Quebec (2018), I’ve got a design on the 1565 Siege of Malta, currently in playtesting. I’ve started scratching the surface on a COIN game, using GMT’s system, to explore the Boer War (the second and ‘big’ one, if anyone is counting), and I’ve got a couple of designs shaping up on a couple of major early twentieth century diplomatic crises – one on the 1911 Agadir Crisis, which didn’t lead to war, and one on the 1914 July Crisis, which, of course, did. They’re both Co-op games. Oh, and I’m still working with the Battle Formations System. There’s White Mountain: 1620 (which I’ve been helping out the designer Adrian Earle with), and I’m still planning on getting to grips with a Napoleonic battle before the summer is out.
For the two of us together, I think Hidden Strike: Caesar (or whatever we end up calling it) is likely to be our next target. But who knows? I suspect quite a lot will depend on how well Hidden Strike: American Revolution goes down with people.
Dorian: Due to the pandemic’s general time-out I decided to focus on one of my personal projects, a sci-fi TTRPG titled “Kaleidoscope” where science and nature have merged to redefine humanity and where the border between the living and the dead is slowly eroding. My goal is to have an introductory adventure along with a light version of the rules out for Halloween. I’m also collaborating on a D&D/Bioshock mashup to be released later this year.
As to future projects with Maurice, I hope there will be many more to come with Hidden Strike: Caesar being the next in line. It’s been a great experience building on each other’s ideas and pushing the design into new directions. Hopefully players will share our enthusiasm when picking up a copy of Hidden Strike: American Revolution.
Thank you so much for your time in answering our questions about the design. I now have a much better idea and understanding about how the game works and frankly am very interested in its various modes as well as the concept of a traitor. I think that this one will be a very engaging and interesting experience and will teach us all some of the more subtle and hidden aspects of the American Revolution.
If you are interested in Hidden Strike: American Revolution you can get more information by visiting the Kickstarter page at the following link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1456271622/311261307?ref=1p5n7w&token=7e8c3481
The Kickstarter campaign is set to launch on Saturday, August 29th at 11:00am EST.
This game looks amazing! Happy early Christmas me!
Thank you for this interview! I greatly respect Maurice Suckling’s work, but I just don’t think this one feels “right” for me. I hope its just a typo or an oversight, but there aren’t British Regulars – just Grenadiers and Veteran Grenadiers? If that is true, a lot of gamers will grit their teeth and most likely look elsewhere for an “historical” game. Not saying anything about the mechanics, they appear to be very smooth and integrated.
The multiple modes of play have piqued my curiosity. I also think that over time, I seem to be more easily swayed by AmRev themed games. Just got the Kickstarter email today; decisions, decisions…
Grant, thanks for another useful interview on a game topic that interests me!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup, call me convinced. I’m in for it. I was surprised to discover this is the first time I have backed anything game-related via KS.
Keeping my fingers crossed it will be a good one.
LikeLiked by 1 person