Imperial Fever Interview: Carlos Marquez Linares

 

Imperial Fever: Great Power Competition in the Late 19th Century is a deckbuilding game for three to four players that recreates great power competition in the period between 1881 and 1915. Players will vie for world dominance as they take on the roles of the United Kingdom, France, the Central Empires (Germany and Austria-Hungary), and the Emergent Powers (the USA and Japan). These powers compete across several interlinked domains, including the naval arms race, military expansion and diplomacy in Europe, power projection in key international theaters, and colonial expansion. This was an era in which the race for hegemony became an end in itself, with entire peoples and national industries consumed by petty competition, eventually resulting in colonial exploitation and the outbreak of WW1. This game does not excuse or glorify the behavior of the player factions but rather seeks to present and understand the perverse incentives that drove them to act in this way.

The rules and images shown here are not final.

You can find it in P500

-Who is Carlos Marquez Linares?

Professionally I am an English teacher, but one day I would like to become a teacher like my father and mother. Perhaps with time, I will acquire the good work and wisdom of him. Personally, I am a father and a husband, and that is the most important and inspiring facet of my life. Today I can only say that I am very lucky to have a wonderful family, a job that I like everything a job can like and a life that allows me to dedicate time to my hobbies.

-What are your favorite wargames?

As a fan of war games, my favorite game is Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg. It's a simulation of the European theater of World War II that requires time and space to play, but playing this game is among my best hobby experiences. It was the game that brought me back to the fans at the turn of this century and it holds a special place in my affections. Also, it's a game that I know well, and that's usually important: we like the games we know well, and we end up knowing the games we like well.

I also generally enjoy Mark Simonitch's games from the 1940 series. To my taste, they are close to the optimal balance between gameplay and simulation. Any war game is fundamentally an abstraction that tries to simulate a war conflict. However, to try to enhance the simulation component, some games incur too much detail for my liking, and this can cloud or overload the management and decision-making of the players. Personally, I don't agree that more detail necessarily implies better simulation, but excessive detail certainly reduces gameplay. For me, the excellence of a design lies in its elegance: in doing more with less. Still, I understand that it's largely a matter of experience and personal preference, so I avoid talking about good or bad games, preferring to talk about design choices I like and others I don't.

In general, I am interested in strategic and operational games and shy away from tactical ones. This is so because I am more interested in the narrative at the general level than at the captain level, so I do not rule out that my preferences are due to certain underlying megalomania. I'm also interested in games that include decision-making at a political level, not just a military one, and those that propose new mechanics. I know it sounds almost blasphemy, but a strategic game with cards and cubes appeals to me more than the umpteenth operational or grand tactical game about World War II or the Napoleonic wars played with cardboard tiles, hexagons, and a table of combat resolution. Regarding the theme, I am interested above all in the period between the end of the Napoleonic wars and the end of the Korean War. I am not attracted to the battles of the ancient world or the medieval ones, although I do like games that simulate the wars of those periods.

-Why did you decide to make this game?

As politicians often say, I'm glad you asked me that question. I have always been interested in this period and I have the game Pax Britannica, in the 1985 Victory Games edition. I have tried to play it a couple of times, but it is a game that has aged badly and today it is very difficult to bring it to the table. , as it shines with at least five or six players and is too long to play a game in one sitting. In addition, the game suffers from cumbersome management that requires controlling income and expenses with forms very similar to those of prosecutors and includes mechanics that lend themselves to picaresques, such as the elaboration of treaties or the system of placing interests on the map. In addition, the prominence of the different powers reflects the historical reality, with a few players very involved throughout the map, such as the United Kingdom and France, and others with historically very limited options, such as Russia or the United States, not to mention Italy.

In the end, the intermission for the less involved players is long and boring, which translates into disinterest on their part. He does have very interesting ideas, such as the management of the Casi Belli and the slope of tensions toward the First World War. Another interesting contribution of the game is the management of victory: since there is so much asymmetry between the powers, some gain many times more points than others. At the end of the game, each power is given a divisor or a multiplier based on its size. The danger of this is that the weaker power can claim ultimate victory having really done very little in the game.

This is a very long explanation to say that Pax Britannica was a game that covered a period that I was very interested in, but I felt that its mechanics had aged poorly and that period deserved treatment with current mechanics. This is where the idea of Imperial Fever was born.

-Tell us about the mechanics

Imperial Fever recreates the struggle for world hegemony between 1885 and 1914. The fundamental mechanic of the game is deck building. Each player starts with a slightly different deck of Action cards. On the board, there is an offer of cards to which more powerful action cards are added, the colonies that become available, and the wars that the players can wage against minor Powers. Some of these cards are reserved for a power, while others can be claimed by any player.

In one turn, the player plays the cards in his hand and puts them in his discard pile. At the end of his turn, the player replenishes his hand up to the limit indicated by his Power's Displeasure value, which is usually 6. Cards are not drawn at random but are chosen from the player's action deck. player. When the deck is depleted, it is replenished with discarded cards. Consequently, although a player chooses the cards he plays each turn, he may not play a card again until he exhausts his entire deck of available cards. Players can remove less powerful cards to cycle the deck faster, albeit at a cheap cost in Resources.

Each turn begins with a Turn Order phase, in which each player secretly chooses a card and places it face down in front of him. These cards are revealed simultaneously and their value indicates turn order. In the event of a tie, the default turn order is applied. If a player has played a Strategy card, its effects are applied and discarded. If he has played any other type of card, it is discarded with no effect. Consequently, players are usually left with five cards to play their turn.

Each player in his turn can only take one action, paying his cost with Action cards of the appropriate type. Typically, each player will perform two or three actions on his turn, depending on the value of the cards in his hand. There are four types of Action cards in the game:

• Strategy Cards: If played in the Turn Order phase, these cards have special effects that, among other things, serve to modify the Power's policies, by flipping one of its two Policy tiles. If played during the Actions phase, these cards act as wild cards that add their value to any other card they are played with. This gives players flexibility to pay costs for which they don't have cards of the right type.

• Empire Cards: These cards are used to open Colonies that are in the card offer, placing a resource cube on them on the map and removing their card from the Offer, but also allow Powers to place a resource cube on a colony opened by another player, at a lower cost. With these cards you can also place Resource cubes in key regions for each Power and move a European Power's Diplomacy marker towards the Entente or Central Powers.

• Economy Cards: These cards allow you to buy action cards from the Offer, recycle cubes, and deploy Naval Squadron markers in Naval Zones on the board.

• Military Cards: These cards allow you to increase the Power's Army, gain control of Colonies in which the player has a Resource cube, and wage war with a minor Power whose card is available in the Bid.

Founding a Colony requires two actions: a first Empire action to place a Resource cube on the Colony and a second Military action to gain control of it. Both actions can be done in the same turn, and that is optimal, although not always possible. The military action is resolved as a combat against the indigenous forces of the Colony and its outcome is always uncertain since it involves rolling dice. Other Powers with cubes in the Colony can support the indigenous forces, making combat even more risky. Once the Colony is founded, a diplomatic incident may occur if there are other Major or Minor Powers with cubes in the region. This conflict can be resolved by dividing up the colony (at a Prestige cost to the player establishing the Colony) or by the Power imposing its control. This second option always translates into diplomatic tensions or an increase in the warmongering of the Power.

Players also have to manage their Resource cubes. Most actions require you to use, deplete, or remove Resource cubes. Players need to pay attention to which cubes are available to them and make sure they recycle or generate new Resource cubes. This is achieved by playing some Strategy cards in the turn order phase, with the effects of some Politics tiles and with Economy actions. Also, when a player founds a Colony, it allows them to recycle or generate new Resource cubes, at a Prestige cost. Alternatively, the player can put resources into building infrastructure in the Colony, giving them Prestige and allowing them to recycle Resources later on.

Imperial Fever is not a game of conflict but of competition. The major Powers will not fight each other, as they historically did not, although there are conflicts and direct interaction between players. The Powers compete in several areas:

• Prestige: Players gain Prestige by increasing their army, building naval Squadrons, controlling naval Zones, founding Colonies, and gaining control of their key Regions. Prestige translates into Victory Points at the end of the game.

• Founded Colonies: The players who have founded the greatest number of Colonies score Victory Points at the end of the game. In addition, if three Colonies of the same region are controlled, extra Victory Points are awarded. There are six regions in play and each region has five Colonies.

• Control of Key Regions: The map includes five Key Regions. Four of them are reserved for a Power, which must secure its dominance at the end of the game in order to maximize the Victory Points it gains for them. All Powers, however, are vying for control of the key region of China. To gain full control of a key Region of their own, Powers must fight and win the war with an associated Minor Power. These wars are the Franco-Chinese War, the Sino-Japanese War, the Anglo-Afghan War, the Spanish-American War, the Russo-Japanese War, and the Austro-Serbian War.

• Naval and Land Military Power: Players with the largest armies and fleets score Victory Points at the end of the game.

• Control of Naval Zones: Powers score Victory Points at the end of the game for each Naval Zone in which they have the majority.

• Objective Cards: At the beginning of the game, each player selects an Objective card that he must fulfill throughout the game. At the end of the first and second eras, the players will choose an Objectives card that they must complete at the end of the game.

• Warmongering Penalty: Players may receive Victory Point penalties if their Warmongering value is too high or has caused the start of World War I.

The game consists of three eras, each of which has a different deck. The first and second eras conclude immediately when the corresponding decks run out. A New Age phase is then resolved in which players gain Prestige for having the majority in naval Zones and for the degree of control of key Regions. Additionally, full-strength Naval Squadrons are demoted and demoted Naval Squadrons disappear at the start of each era. This simulates the obsolescence caused by the dizzying advancement of naval technology in these years, which went from wooden ships with armor plates to Superdreadnought-type battleships. In parallel, the costs of building naval Squadrons and establishing Colonies increase as the ages go by.

The game concludes when the third-era deck runs out or when World War I breaks out. World War I begins automatically when the Warmongering value of the three major European Powers (UK, France, and the Central Powers) exceeds the Peace value in Europe or when the Warmongering value of any European Power reaches the maximum level (20 points).

Diplomacy is also important in Fever. This era was characterized by the construction of two antagonistic blocs in Europe: the Entente, led by France, and the Triple Alliance, sponsored by the Central Powers. France will try to attract the United Kingdom and Russia to her alliance, while the Central Powers will try to attract Italy and Turkey. Players can spend Empire Actions to draw sympathetic powers into or away from an alliance.

The starting value for Powers' Warmongering is zero and the starting value for Peace in Europe is 20. Warmongering values increase as players expand their Armies and build naval Squadrons and as a result of player conflicts. The value of Peace in Europe is decreasing as a result of Events and as countries join the two antagonistic blocs, which are the Entente, led by France, and the Triple Alliance, led by the Central Powers.

At the end of each turn, an Event is revealed that can present a piece of news, a dilemma, or a crisis that affects a specific Power or all Powers. The Event deck includes more cards than necessary in a single game to add replayability and variability to the game.

In addition to the Major Powers, the game contemplates the actions of the Minor Powers, which in the game are Russia, China, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey, and Portugal. These actions are resolved with a random table that simulates Russia's competition in key regions such as the Balkans, India, and Korea, the upheavals in China as a result of foreign interference, and the colonial efforts of European minor powers.

-How do the different sides work?

Imperial Fever is an eminently asymmetric game. In a four-player game, these Powers are the United Kingdom, France, the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary), and the Emerging Powers (United States and Japan). In three-player games, the United States and Japan become Minor Powers.

The UK is strong at sea, starts controlling all Naval Zones, and has the largest potential fleet. Its weak point is its small army, which reduces its access to the prestige granted by the Expand Army military action and end-game Victory Points by Army size. The United Kingdom will hardly win the game if it does not maintain control of the Oceans, but this is very expensive. Fortunately, a Conservative government on the corresponding UK policy tile will reduce the cost of building naval Squadrons. Ultimately, the UK will probably only be able to maintain naval supremacy if they reach an agreement with France and Japan, but this means that these powers will also have access to the Prestige and Victory Points associated with naval Zone control. The UK's dominance at the time is also reflected in its position in the default Turn Order, which effectively ensures it top position as long as the player is willing to pay the price. The UK is also the only power to start with a 2-value strategy card, making its starting hand the most versatile. The UK player must also try to secure control over India and fight for dominance in China. On top of all this, getting at least second place in the colonial race will give the UK a chance to win the game.

France is good at establishing Colonies. The advantage given by one of her Political Tiles makes the colonies cheaper to obtain and conquer, depending on which side of the Tile is shown. Not having a Key Region to defend, France can invest more resources in colonial expansion, aided by its Empire value 2 starting action card. In return, one of France's weaknesses is precisely that it does not have a Key Region of its own. , which blocks access to the Prestige for Key Regions in the New Age phases and the Victory Points associated with them at the end of the game. France can make up for this by trying to dominate China, but the player will have to compete with all the other powers in that key Region. Naval dominance also helps France win the game, especially in the third era, so the player must try to convince the British that an alliance between them is mutually beneficial and that both should spend precious Empire actions on improving their diplomatic relations. Investing in diplomacy is also important for France because alliances with Russia and the United Kingdom increase her Prestige and put pressure on the Central Powers, who will want to pocket the Victory Points for the Hegemony Objective card in Europe. Lastly, France should pay close attention to its Unrest value, as there are several France-specific Events that increase it.

The Central Empires have the largest potential army in the game. By expanding his army to its maximum size, the player is assured of a significant pool of Prestige and Victory Points at the end of the game. No Power can compete with the Central Empires in this area, if the player invests the necessary actions and Resources. The Central Empires player also has the means to augment his Army: a starting 2-value military action card and a large pool of resources representing the rapidly growing populations of his countries. In return, the Central Powers are late in the colonial race (the UK and France start with two open colonies each), are not as well equipped as France to establish Colonies, and need to invest valuable Empire shares to secure control of the Central Powers. Balkans and invest in Diplomacy.

The Central Empires have a Policy Tile with one side allowing them to pay a lower cost to expand their Army, while the other side allows them to open colonies at a lower cost. The Central Empires player must decide when to switch from one side to the other, but there is no right answer: if done too early, Army expansion will compete with colony subjugation; if it is done too late, it may be impossible to catch up with France or even the United Kingdom in the colonial race. The Central Powers are also the UK's most direct competitors for control of the naval Zones: the addition of the Italian and Turkish fleets makes it difficult for the UK to control the Mediterranean, while in the North Sea only the Central Powers Central and UK can build Naval Squadrons. The naval race in the North Sea and the Mediterranean can be brutal, especially in the third era, when Strategy cards appear from the United Kingdom and the Central Powers that allow you to build naval Squadrons without spending resources. Another weakness of the Central Empires is Warmongering. Most actions in which the Central Empires have an advantage increase their Warmongering value, and so do many Event cards. There usually comes a time when the Central Empires player must start to be careful with increasing his Army and expanding his fleet because if his Warmongering value reaches 20 points, the game immediately ends with the outbreak of World War I and the player suffers a 5 Victory Point penalty.

The Emerging Powers player has less chance to interact with the rest of the players than the other three Powers, so his challenge is to optimize his game to achieve his goals. The weak point of the Emerging Powers is that for historical reasons their access to the Colonies is very limited. The Emerging Powers may have a hard time taking over the Pacific Colonies, the only ones they have access to, as they tend to play last during the Actions phase. However, if the other Powers are deep in their various disputes and the cards come out at the right time, the Emerging Powers can take over several of those Colonies. And then it is possible to achieve a tie in the Colonial Empire with the third European Power, if it has focused too much on its other objectives. On the other hand, not having to invest in Colonies leaves the Emerging Powers with free Empire points to secure control of their two key Regions, Korea and America, and invest in control of China. In fact, the Emerging Powers can make up for the lack of prestige coming from the Colonies with two Key Regions and three different wars (other players only have one war each). This implies that the Emerging Powers will need to plan ahead and build powerful and expensive fleets for the US and Japan, as all three wars require naval combat. Fortunately, the Emerging Powers are well equipped for this, as they have a value 2 Economy card. This advantage in Economy also allows the Emerging Powers to acquire new cards with ease. On the other hand, the Emerging Powers should try to ensure control of the two Naval Zones to which they have access, the Pacific and the Atlantic. The UK-Japan Treaty should pave control of the Pacific, although its establishment is up to the British player. Lastly, Emerging Powers should not neglect their armies either, as there is significant prestige point potential within them.

Some players may wonder why the same player controls the United States and Japan and why Russia is not a Major Power. The answer is in the agency of the players. The United Kingdom, France and the Central Powers are clear choices in the dispute for world hegemony at this time. However, Russia, locked in warm waters with no outlet, and the United States and Japan, two newcomers to the struggle for world hegemony, do not have enough to do to compete on their own with the three great European Powers. One option would be to make them Major Powers with little agency, balancing their Victory Points at the end of the game. This is the Pax Britannica option, but I think this makes them much less interesting to play. The other option is to group two of them under the control of a single player. Conflicts between Russia and Japan for control of Korea and northern China make it unfeasible for the same player to control them. The other option is to group the United States with Japan or with Russia. The fact that both Japan and the United States share their status as newcomers to the great international scene makes them ideal candidates to be grouped together, especially if the close relations between the two countries in the 19th century and the absence of conflict are added. between the two, beyond a vague claim to Hawaii by Japan. Also, the aggressive nature of Japan in this era makes it more interesting as a playable Power. Russia, for its part, remains very present in the game through the roll of Minor Powers and its intervention ensures headaches in the key Regions of the United Kingdom, the Central Powers and Japan throughout the game.

Asymmetry is a key feature of the game and it permeates all of its systems, connecting them in a coherent way. Asymmetry also encourages replayability, as players will leave their first game with alternate strategies for their Power that they will want to try in the next game. Since each side is managed very differently, the design allows each power to be played in succession and the experience will be very different in each case. It has been common during playtesting that a player thinks another Power has it easier until he chooses to play it in the next game and only then discovers its disadvantages.

One possible drawback of asymmetry is balance. It is easier to play a balanced game when all players start in an equal position and have the same alternatives. In this game, tests have shown that although each side plays differently, all sides can win and the final scores are not too far apart.

-Can you recommend a bibliography to get into the setting?

The first book I would recommend is The Scramble for Africa by Thomas Packenham, which is a detailed account of the race to dominate Africa between 1876 and 1912, roughly the time the game covers. The second essential book from which the design of Imperial Fever draws is Dreadnought, by Robert Massie. This is an exciting chronicle of international relations at the time that the game recreates, focusing on the influence of the naval arms race, especially as it affects the relationship between the United Kingdom and Japan. The book includes scores of delightful biographical and psychological portraits of key figures of the time, emphasizing how individual factors played a role in the heightened tensions that led to the outbreak of the Great War.

Regarding specific powers, I would recommend Christopher Clark's Iron Kingdom, which traces the history of Prussia from the birth of the kingdom to the end of World War II and is an essential work for understanding the policies and Motivations of Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries. To understand the figure of Emperor Meiji and the surprising and dizzying changes that transformed Japan during the 19th century, you can read Emperor of Japan, by Donald Keene. Definitely worth reading The Earth is Weeping  by Peter Cozzens, a harsh chronicle of the westward expansion of the United States at the cost of the extermination of Native American peoples. A very interesting book in Spanish to understand the time is Zulu: the battle of Isandlwana, by Carlos Roca, which narrates the decisions that led to the outbreak of the Zulu war and the mistakes of the British command that caused the Isandlwana disaster.

-After this game do you have anything prepared?

At this moment, the development and editing of The Other Side of the Hill and Imperial Fever occupy all my free time for this hobby. I won't deny that there are other projects in various stages of development, but I still don't have enough confidence in any of them to present it publicly, even briefly. Right now there are two proposals of mine on the market; Let's wait and see how the players receive them before venturing anything else.