Skip to main content

The Korean War by Victory Games is Awesome

I've played two slightly truncated games of the Korean War recently and it has quickly become my favourite hex and counter game.

This is a mid 1980s design out of Victory Games an off shoot of the dying (or dead I forget which by this date) SPI games but based in New York under the Umbrella of Avalon Hill. It'd designed by Joe Balkoski and covers the first 12 months of the war, which is where all the action was in history, at the divisional and regimental scale. Each turn lasts a month and you have 12 turns taking around an hour each. It has two medium sized paper hex maps that put together will fill a typical dining room table. As it is a divisional scale game (to non war gamers that means most units represent a full division of an army which is a lot of dudes), you don't have that many counters, which means no big counter stats and not too much time sorting them out at the start of play. This scores big points in my book.

Yesterday I played the Communists and my friend, Dave P McArthur played the UN. He decided to leave the strategic opening decisions of the UN entirely up to Washington and so rolled a die to determine each of them.

On turn 2, after the North Koreans have swept over the border and hammered the south, the UN intervenes. At this point the UN player has to make some strategic decisions. He or she has to choose the UN intervention level, mobilization level and rules of engagement. These three decision essentially determine how many troops the UN get, when they arrive, how quickly than can transfer between ports and carry out amphibious assaults, where they can bomb, and whether they can drop atomics. 

Dave decided to let the die decide rather than choose, because he wanted to see what might happen if some distant politicians made decisions for him. He ended up with a a very low initial intervention, so few troops early on, but high mobilization and liberal rules of engagement so he could bomb anywhere. The downside is this ramped up the global tension level quite a bit. This tension level, if it reaches 7, the Communists win. Further, and this was Dave's downfall and lead to his resignation on turn 4, the UN subtracts 5 times this tension level from their vps scored each turn. 

There was no Pusan perimeter in this game. I got stuck around Seoul. I did take Seoul but crossing the river and securing Inchon before American started landing proved to be harder than I expected. I also got road blocked down the east coast by a US force. IN the end I did manage to encircle Inchon but by now it was turn 3 going on 4. Whilst this was slow, from another perspective I had forced the UN to waste time and play hard slowing their victory gains to the point where they could only realistically win by a military victory conquering the whole of North Korea, something they were unlikely to achieve, hence Daves resignation. 

Why do I like it so much?

Theres a number of things this game does very well.

Firstly I like war games that give you different objectives or victory conditions that you can work toward. There was a point in this recent game where I chose to go from an all out assault victory to an attritional strategy. Even in attack, do I strike at my opponents supply sources, the key cities for vps, or the  instant win condition of Pusan? Balancing the priorities and working out what is really strategically essential and what is no longer realistic or important is satisfying armchair general material.  

Secondly I like manoeuvre. Games with lines pushing each other back and forth can be fun, but can be a bit boring. I like encirclements, break outs etc. 

Thirdly both sides get to attack, both sides get dramatic phases in the game. The North Koreans swing first, the UN second, the Chinese third. It gives the game narrative acts and switches the footing of both players.

Fourth, the game has plenty of clever tactical systems. The way depots are deployed and supply calculated is simple and interesting, the UN air chart, deciding how to use action points for each unit. It all adds up to a detailed but still manageable tactical puzzle each turn. 

And fifth, the external events. The game has plenty of historical what ifs? chromed into its rules. What if Nationalist China, or the Soviets joined in? What if Atomics were dropped? Whilst I have a read a history of the Korean War, I haven't studied it in detail enough to comment on the accuracy of the game as a simulation, but it does produce a believable account. 


  1. Simon, Korean War is my absolute favorite game and I play it as often as I can. Thanks for your article as it helps spread the good word about this game. I have posted a link to this article on


  2. I was wondering why my total hits had doubled over the past week. Thanks for the link.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Quick Play Thru: Washington's Crossing

Being a man who likes diversity I bought / pre-ordered 4 games for Christmas about dudes in flashy coats with muskets marching around road networks. I’ve already Quick looked at Nappys Nemesis 1813, Metz is yet to be released from P500, Autumn of Glory is on the shelf, so this weekend I have played Washington’s Crossing.

The Patriot opening more or less followed the script. Washington moved with his stack, crossed the Delaware with decent movement and ferry rolls and come morning was sat just outside Trenton next to Rall’s Hessian garrison. The American gets a rather scripted +5 to surprise rolls when attacking Trenton, plus it being dawn and a prepared attack gave Washington very favourable odds but the roll was terrible and Rall escaped with only 25% losses and a retreat.
Further south Greene collected a few detachments of militia and drove the other Hessian garrisons north.

The Hessians forced marched out wide forcing Washington to either hunt them down for a few extra vps, or look el…

Quick Looks; Red Star / White Eagle

I generally hate it when people describe designs or ideas in games as dated, because many of the most innovative games  are older than I am. Equally it implies there is something innately good about new designs, which I don't think there is.

Dune is arguably the best multiplayer 'war' boardgame and the 70s basic DnD is in my view still the best RPG. I wasn't born until the late 80s and didn't discover these things to the mid 2000s so this isn't nostalgia doing my thinking, its just that some old ideas are better than new ones, despite our apparent 'progress'.

But having said all this Red Star / White Eagle is a dated game design. And this matters if you are looking at popping £70 on a new reprint of it from Compass Games. I am a wary cheapskate so I picked up a second hand copy with a trashed box of ebay for £20. It was worth it, but only just.

Red Star / White Eagle is a GDW 1979 Hex and Counter wargame covering the 1920 Russo - Polish war. Everything …

Quick Looks: The Pacific War: From Pearl Harbour to the Philippines

Imported games have the allure of being foreign and expensive, they also often come with the glamorous trappings of bad rules translation. Pacific War is all of these things but first the good;
It’s short. I’m not being factious here, generally Pacific Theatre war games are long and complicated, which is fine but it leaves the shallow end of the dream pool rather empty. The Pacific War clocks in around 2-3 hours and feels engrossing for this life span.
You’ve got a point to point map, pretty and functional but no pageant winner, a deck of cards, and a load of counters representing ships that come in on a historical reinforcement schedule. Each year long turn you get a variable number of cards. Players take action rounds discarding a card to win the privilege of doing something and then either play an event card, or move some ships, or resupply some ships (so they can move again). Once out of cards they roll off for priority in taking more actions but if they roll doubles the year ends.