With Noble Knight announcing their Spring Sale, I took it as a sign to finally pull the trigger on purchasing Great War Commander (2nd Printing). It's been on my wish list for a while, and with Dominion of the Trenches covering the low complexity, fast gaming, it seemed only right to take advantage of the sale to move a bit in the other direction.
![]() |
| Image from boardgamegeek.com |
Of note, I will mention ASLSK several times - it is the board game that I have played that is most like GWC - both are low-level tactical games in their respective periods.
I have a little experience with hex-and-counter games but just a few titles so I don't have a lot of reference points, but I can say with some authority that the rule book is considerably more useful as an at-the-table reference document, than the ASL Starter Kit #1 rule book. The latter requires searching through dense paragraphs to find a rule you remember reading but can't quite recall where. Great War Commander's rule book is not perfect mind you and some things I found myself flipping forward and backward to find.
Still, while everything wasn't entirely clear to me (and won't be until I've played a few more games I'm sure), it felt (on reading) far less complex than ASLSK.
Of course, it may be that because I've read, and re-read, played and replayed, ASLSK #1, as well as Burning Mountains (not terribly complex,but certainly tedious), and Battle for Moscow (a game of minimal complexity), that Great War Commander seems more accessible. That is, I have a base of experience to draw from and had I started with GWC with no experience of any kind, I might find it completely opaque.
Speaking of complexity, boardgamegeek shows that ASLSK#1 averages 3.76/5 and GWC averages 3.17/5. For my money, I think it's more like 4/5 and 3/5(or probably more like 2.75/5) respectively. Boargamegeek also shows Burning Mountains has a 2.20/5 complexity rating. I think it feels more difficult than GWC on reading, frankly. In play, I would argue some of the math makes it feel more complex than GWC but the actual turn sequence is fairly straightforward. But I majored in Philosophy and ,later, Library Science, and was never much for math.
After reading the rules, as the rules themselves recommend, I played along with the example of play. I thought this was a genius approach to teaching the game! (Maybe other boardgames do this? I don't know.)
While it was a little cumbersome at times trying to find the card called for in the text, it really felt like I was playing a learning game, where I got to know what playing the game would feel like generally, how the more common rules worked, etc.
Speaking of cards, GWC, as you may know, is in the Company Commander family of games and is card driven. No dice are rolled (although there are dice icons printed on the cards, so it's not quite like using playing cards).
But how much interaction and how fluid is all based on the cards that the players have in their hands. And I suppose that would be a sticking point for some.
For the active side, the cards are the orders you have available, and if your hand doesn't have something you can use, you can pass, discard cards (up to a specified limit for the scenario) and draw up to your maximum.
This can go on for several turns until you get an order you can make use of. Possibly more so if you aren't great at shuffling the brand new decks *cough cough*
I bought this to play solo, so I'm always going to be doing something not matter what, but I can imagine it being annoying and frustrating in head-to-head games.
The cards are also used of actions that can modify the situation - a +/- on a die roll, breaking an enemy formation in melee before the die roll, etc. So, you can make use of those cards that don't have useful orders on them, just not as orders.
Also, because I personally feel like Fire/Op Fire is just something to expect and doesn't need to be a surprise, if a side had one or more of those cards, I kept those face up to remind me to use it. Otherwise, I quickly scanned through a side's hand for any useful action in response to the side I was playing as at that moment.
That seemed to work quite well.
Another note, counter stacks are fairly minimal - I think the tallest stack I had was 3 counters: a suppressed (1 counter) platoon (1 counter) with an MG (1 counter). The hexes are big enough that you don't have to stack everything all the time. Which is great, because falling stacks are annoying (Burning Mountains I'm looking at you and your 5+ high counter stacks!)
Oh the weapon rules are a joy of ease and simplicity compared to ASLSK.
Finally, playing the game was highly enjoyable, and felt like I was watching a story unfold (with opportunities to shape it). It was more towards the Dominion of the Trenches side of the equation in that respect. In my game, the Germans had a commanding victory. The French units struggle to coordinate a response felt right given my poor use of the French leaders. Air power played a small role for both sides. Rommel was wounded but survived. The Germans captured three of their four objectives, eliminated a few of the French units including the French officers, and then chose to bypass the remaining, totally ineffectual units (exiting the enemy's board edge is worth Victory Points).
I genuinely can't wait to play again. With an upcoming long weekend, I plan to play the 1st scenario again but this time I'll try to make better use of the French leaders!















.png)
















