Quartermaster General

My mention of having played and enjoyed Quartermaster General prompted some interest so I thought that I would expand on it a bit. Demonstrating the degree to which I have my finger on the pulse, I had never heard of the game before arriving in the pub on Monday evening (le Bois d'If, same as every Monday) when a fellow gamer mentioned it. Entirely by chance we found ourselves with exactly six players at a suitable time in the evening and so it hit the table. That encapsulates my main reservation with the game and why I probably won't buy it myself; to play it properly one needs exactly six people.

In order to get everyone to play it we had to overcome the reservations of one of the two women present, who expressed a disdain for wargames. I reminded her of the time we had played Manhattan Project and she had to admit to happily launching bombing raids on her competitors as part of that game (as an aside, on that occasion I won by eschewing the conflict part and sticking to the accountancy); she was also, I think, swayed by QG's co-operative aspects. It's a team game rather than strictly co-operative, with players representing the UK, US and Soviet Union facing off against those taking the part of Germany, Italy and Japan. Turn order is fixed with the Germans starting it and the US being last to join in; so far so realistic. My own dislike of co-operative games is really of those where everyone has the same information, because I find that most players simply end up as being the stooges of the most forceful personality. In this game teams can discuss things, but don't know what is in each other's hands and in any event anything they say can obviously be overheard by the other team, so such conversation tends to be limited.

I have now gone back and read a few reviews of Quartermaster General and most complaints seem to be that one's actions are restricted by the cards currently in one's hand - in particular that one often can't attack when one feels like it - and that on occasions one's turn simply consists of playing a card that will come in handy later on. Now there is no doubt that conflict resolution is perfunctory, not even reaching the levels of complexity seen in Diplomacy, but I found this constraint worked well. The Allies would like to have opened a second front in 1943, but weren't ready so they couldn't; once again so far so realistic. As the name might suggest the game is in large part about supply and about economic warfare. The US have the material, the USSR has the men and the UK has geographic reach through its empire; the Germans and Japanese have the early initiative and the Italians have, well I never actually discovered what they have.

Anyway, caveated by the fact that I only played it once, I only played one side and I only played about half of the deck (because we had saved the world for democracy by then), I enjoyed it. It's clearly a game about war - with lots of historical reference points - but it's also a game about marshalling resources and prioritising decisions. According to the person who brought it along it has great replayability. I'm not really surprised that the game gets a much higher rating on boardgamegeek than reading the reviews would suggest. But, and it's a big but, you need six people.