Stop me if you've heard this before: I was never a wargamer, but I liked the idea of wargames, specifically simulating a military or other conflict through the use of a board, tokens, and dice. There's just something inherently appealing to me about this, which probably explains why I've spent more than four decades trying but rarely succeeding at finding a wargame that really clicked with me. I owned and played a number of Avalon Hill and SPI games in my youth, but, with the exception of Diplomacy, I was never very good at them (and even there I was hampered by my inexplicable tendency to play Austria-Hungary).
However, in 1984, Milton Bradley released a line of games under the banner of the "Gamemaster Series" that caught my attention. The series was an experiment in bringing wargames to the mass market. Each entry in the series came in a massive, shelf-dominating box filled with lavish components and a rulebook that looked intimidating compared to more traditional boardgames like Monopoly or Risk. The series began with Axis & Allies, designed by Larry Harris, and followed swiftly with another of his creations, Conquest of the Empire.
While Axis & Allies presented World War II in game form, Conquest of the Empire did the same thing for the Roman Empire's Crisis of the Third Century. The game was a grand-scale battle for supremacy across the Mediterranean world after the death of Marcus Aurelius. It was, in every sense, a spectacle, a game whose physical components alone promised an epic experience before a single die was rolled. As a young history buff with a particular affection for Greco-Roman history, this was the game I'd been waiting for.
To appreciate Conquest of the Empire, it helps to recall what the gaming landscape looked like in the mid-1980s. The boundary between “mainstream” and “hobby” games was much starker than it is today. Wargames were, as I noted above, largely the province of companies like Avalon Hill or SPI. They were sold in specialty stores to an audience comfortable with long rulebooks and hex maps. By contrast, the Gamemaster Series was an attempt to bridge that gap by combining high production values, streamlined rules, and compelling subjects to attract both traditional hobbyists and curious outsiders like myself.
Axis & Allies was, I gather, very successful. Certainly my friends and I enjoyed playing it and we did so often. Of course, even in the 1980s, World War II was a staple of wargames. Conquest of the Empire thus deviated just enough to be considered daring. Furthermore, its subject, the period of the Military Anarchy, was less familiar and its map of the Mediterranean world, divided into provinces and trade routes, hinted at something more intricate than the average family game. Of course, that's precisely why I loved it.
Opening Conquest of the Empire for the first time is something I cannot forget. To start, the box was enormous. Inside lay nearly four hundred molded plastic miniatures, such as legionnaires with raised shields, catapults, coins, and galleys to patrol the Mare Nostrum. There were also cities to build, roads to lay down, and an oversized, vividly illustrated board depicting the known world from Britannia in the northwest to Aegyptus in the southeast. Following the death of Marcus Aurelius, the empire teeters on the brink of chaos. Each player takes the role of a would-be emperor, commanding armies, building cities, taxing provinces, and waging war until one emerges victorious. It's a straightforward and appealing premise – especially to my teenage self.
Like Axis & Allies, the game was structured around economic management and military conquest. Provinces provided income, which could be spent to raise legions, fleets, and fortifications. Armies moved along roads or across the sea, engaging in battles resolved by simple dice rolls. Catapults were useful in sieges and galleys could ferry troops to distant shores. Victory went to the player who amassed the most wealth and territory, though, in practice, the game often ended in exhaustion or mutual ruin long before an emperor was crowned.
That said, the game was not without its flaws. Its economy could snowball rapidly, favoring whoever secured a few prosperous provinces early on. Combat could be pretty random, with legions sometimes crushed or exalted on a handful of dice. The rules for roads and taxation added an appealing Roman flavor but little in the way of meaningful choice. Players spent much of the game counting coins, rebuilding destroyed forces, and waiting for their next chance to strike. One might argue that some of this is, in fact, realistic or at least true to history, but it didn't always make for a satisfying game.
Even so, Conquest of the Empire often felt epic. Setting up the board, arranging your legions, and surveying the Mediterranean was a ritual of grandeur. It was easy to imagine oneself as a latter-day Caesar, eyeing the spoils of empire. The game rewarded patience more than finesse and spectacle more than subtlety, but it delivered a sense of scale that my friends and I found incredibly alluring. It's little wonder that I still think about this game decades later.
From what I have read, it seems that Milton Bradley’s Gamemaster Series never achieved the mainstream success the company had hoped. Axis & Allies became a perennial favorite and spawned multiple editions and spin-offs, but Conquest of the Empire eventually vanished from store shelves, remembered fondly by those of us who had the chance to play it back in the day. I suspect part of the reason was that its theme was less immediately engaging to American audiences and its rules required a level of commitment somewhat closer to Avalon Hill than to Parker Brothers.

I got this for Christmas. Unfortunately bunch of pieces were missing :( We returned it to the store but they didn't have any more copies, so I never got to play it.
ReplyDeleteMy 1980s gaming group loved this game! Couldn't get enough of those catapults, and the galleys, what a blast. It was "light weight" compared to Squad Leader and a nice break from Axis and Allies, which we also played. Should have used those plastic coins as props in our D&D games.
ReplyDeleteOh, those blasted plastic bridges (!) .. that’s what did me in.
ReplyDeleteI should have been the core demographic for Conquest of the Empire: family of simulation game designers with a full complement of Avalon Hill ‘bookshelf’ games; I can’t remember ever not playing chess; loved ancient civilisations and dead languages; complexity not an issue. No wonder CotE was a Christmas gift. Yet, I think it got played once (and not all the way through at that).
See, once D&D came along, we could do all that without pieces. No counters. No fiddly bits. No need to requisition the dining room table for days. As complex or simple, serious or silly as we wanted. D&D allowed those of us who liked the intellectual aspect of simulation games to peel off from those who liked ‘stuff’ .. which was a relief (logistically, financially, and socially). We already played chess without pieces .. now we could play the world.
From that point, my friends and I rarely played Feudal (our hitherto favourite), or Risk, Stratego, et al. I still played ‘Civil War’ (AH, 1961) with my grandfather because I loved the quiet time with him, and he loved that era (which was just becoming history when he was a child .. you still met veterans). I’ve sought a copy of that game for nostalgia.
CotE (1982/1984) came too late to the party for me, but it seems that such ’paraphernalia games’ experienced resurgences a time or two the last 40 years.
Thank you for broadening out the conversation to include these other relations of our hobby .. and, if CotE is still in the old family game cupboard, James, I will happily post it to you.
Cheerio, Matthew.
'Superstition' (1977, Milton Bradley)! The little plastic pegs which triggered the traps (and kept getting misplaced) might be what set off my now eternal dislike of fiddly game bits, including the infamous plastic CotE roads above (not bridges, those must be another game, the memory of which I've since surpressed ;) Matthew.
DeleteJim Hodges----
ReplyDeleteI'd almost forgotten this game, or at least hadn't thought about it for many years. Decades ....
In Christmas 1984 I got Axis & Allies and when COTE came out my brother, who was still in elementary school wanted it. I told him he was too young and he told me to bugger off and got it for his birthday anyway, thinking of it like he did Crossbows and Catapults, a more tactile pursuit. The result was he was too young but did enjoy playing with the miniatures alongside his GI Joes and He Men, creating time travel scenarios involving Roman armies meeting whenever the heck the '80s iteration of GI Joe was supposed to be. Basically the coins and pieces got lost, I gloated in an I told you so smugness, and were it not for reencountering COTE among my school friends that summer for a couple mildly unsatisfying sessions of trying to rule Rome, I might have forgotten all about this flawed but intriguing Reagan era offering. Thanks for the memories!
My little brother and I LOVED this game. I recall one game where I had conquered the entire world except for Britain. He was down one ship and his Caesar. While I was messing around he sailed back to my unprotected Rome and took it, wining the game. I was so pissed....
ReplyDeleteUgh. Of the five Gamemaster series wargames, this was by far the worst of the lot for actual gameplay. Whoever got an edge on number of catapults won almost every time IME, really only being foiled by the occasional run of lucky sixes from an opponent. They addressed that in the 2005 re-release, but it's still a fairly wonky game that relies more on dumb luck than skill.
ReplyDeleteBroadsides & Boarding Parties was pretty swingy too, although at least it didn't rely so much on one key unit. Got thoroughly panned by reviewers at the time, and believe it was the first of teh series to go out of production as well as being the only one that's never had a re-release or new edition.
Fortress America as about in the middle of the pack in terms of gameplay, balance, and the impact of skill versus luck. In theory it's a 3-vs-1 game (making it harder to get a game together) but a competent player can easily run all three Invader factions - and will probably be more effective than three Invader players trying to coordinate their efforts. The main source of dumb luck were the US reinforcement cards, which could skew the game pretty badly if the weaker or stronger ones came up in clumps at the right/wrong times. FFG did a revamped version way back in 2012, although I'm not convinced the changes they made were real improvements.
Axis & Allies was the biggest success of the lot, with numerous supplement, variants, and spinoff games. Easily rivals Diplomacy in that regard, and it's in the ballpark of the countless Risk variants out there. We found it too predictable to have much replay value and some factions (ie Russia) have very limited options in the base game, which often led to playing with 4 people and an autopiloted Russia rather than the intended 3-vs-2. Still, it's undeniably the most popular and successful of the three Harris games.
Shogun (aka Samurai Swords and more recently Ikusa) is my favorite of the lot for multiple reasons. It's got the same kind of flexible number of players and setup options that Conquest featured, which greatly improves replay value. There's no "one true strategy" or key unit type to rely on, and the system for assigning koku to different actions gives you a lot of options each and every turn - at least until you start on a doom spiral from losing too much territory and your income collapses. The only really swingy part of the game is the ninja assassination mechanic, which can suddenly cripple a key army group - but you do have the option to just outbid everyone for the guy in the black pajamas and avoid that danger if it's really bugging you. The slow but (mostly) steady accumulation of experience on your generals also leads to an increasing pace of action that keeps the game from dragging on too long.
Shogun does suffer from the fact that (in a 4-5 player game) some players will be eliminated long before the game ends and they'll need to find something else to do, but that's less of an issue in 2025 (with its endless distractions from the internet and consoles) than it was in the later 80s. Even at it's worst Shogun is still way better than, say, Titan when it comes to leaving half the players twiddling their thumbs for hours after some early KOs. I'd also contend that Shogun had the best looking playing pieces in the series, although they could be a bit fragile (hence the reason they gave you some random spare ashigaru - so many snapped spears).
There's a 40th anniversary release (as Ikusa: Samurai Swords) due next year and hoo boy, does it look pretty. Going to cost a fortune, but it's a collector's dream.
Back in the day, my best friend bought Fortress America and I bought Axis and Allies. I was thrilled since I saw that as one step up from RISK. After one game of FA, where he lost everything trying to take Denver, the board and dice went out the window and that was that. Though I would play A&A many times over the years. I eventually found all of these original games (at the same time I found a working complete copy of the old Dark Tower game). My sons determined they still like A&A best, though they also said Shogun was a close second. One son did like this game. Fortress America they felt was a bit broken, and I'll admit I never bothered with the Pirate game. I also admit, I've grown fond of the Shogun game as well. Maybe we'll try this one again when we can.
ReplyDeleteFortress America was printed with two different boxes. After the first Gulf war, the second printing replaced a generic strongman in fatigues with Saddam Hussein's face.
DeleteMan we had some fights over Axis & Allies. Especially when one player (me) was knocked out of the game, but I continued to give advice to my teammate.
DeleteI was like, “But we’re ALLIES!”
The opposition saw it differently: “YOU’RE DEFEATED, GO HOME!”
Love A&A, played the Hell out of it back in the day.
ReplyDeleteNow I am really into Memoir '44, but I can't find folks to play. I REALLY want to run a long A&A/Memoir '44 campaign... A&A for strategic developments and movement, and Memoir '44 for the actual battles.
I'm hoping the new Battle of Hoth game (also Commands & Colors, like Memoir '44) might bring out some folks who will like the system well enough to move into Memoir '44... or even Ancients or Medieval C&C!