Introduction: I own about 70 board wargames. I just realized today that I have been playing board wargames for exactly 30 years now, (since I was 12 and received the Avalon Hill "Gettysburg" game for Xmas one year). I had not actually bought a board war game in the past 10 years, when I saw on the MMP site that there was a pre-order page for a game called Red Star Rising by IGS. For the past decade I have played a fair number of WW2 computer simulations, enjoying the Talonsoft series, Combat Mission series, Close Combat series, HPS Simulations, and Ubisoft's Silent Hunter and IL2 Sturmovik series. I had concluded that board games had sort of gone the way of the dinosaur. I decided to give Red Star Rising a shot and obtained it on pre-order about a month ago. In doing so, I did a search and came upon this fantastic site for boardgames. Thank you for such excellent forums! The purpose of this review is to give anyone who is looking at the game as a possible purchase a small snapshot of what to expect. Before doing that, however, I will give a brief overview of my experience with WW2 Eastern Front wargames, so that you will see the basis for my analysis, and what I personally look for when buying a wargame. Background: My first Russian front boardgame was Avalon Hill's Stalingrad. I enjoyed it so much that in Junior High I read every book in the school library on the conflict. To this day, I find it the most dramatic, fascinating, and complex war in history. Later, Avalon Hill produced The Russian Campaign. At the time, it was a much better simulation than Stalingrad, but still somewhat simplistic. I also own SPI's Panzergruppe Guderian: Battle for Smolensk, and really enjoyed the fact that the counters for the Russian units were "?" marks, which were only flipped over to reveal their strength when contact was made. Neither the Germans nor the Russians knew the Russian counter strengths prior to conflict. I own most of the Advanced Squad Leader modules and enjoyed those as well; particularly the Eastern Front conflicts. Given my experience, here is a list of things that I look for in a board wargame: Five Aspects of a Board Wargame that Determine Its Appeal: 1) The first and foremost element of importance to me is whether I can play a war game solitary or not. I primarily play these games alone, even on the computer. I play Red Orchestra in an online clan, and very much enjoy it. We have headphones, and socialize, and joke while we play, and it is a great time! For board wargames, however, I prefer solitude. I enjoy making strategies for both sides. I want to make plans, see how they work out, and do a phase or whole turn when I feel like it. That's not to say that Vassal or HPS Simulation's Aide de Camp programs, or FTF games aren't fun. I'm just saying that I predominantly play my board games alone and, quite frankly, given my limited time, it is the most practical method for me. 2) I want a map and counters that look cool. That is, I want units to be colorful and representative of their respective side. I want a map that is not predominantly white, or cartoony, or just plain boring. Maps that I consider good looking are, for example, Avalon Hill's GCACW series, Anzio, or ASL's Red Barricades. Good looking counters I deem to be similar to those in these aforementioned games. 3) I want a game that is challenging, but not so difficult that it would be easier to go to West Point than decipher the Rule Book. Advanced Third Reich, Empire of the Sun, and even ASL are a tad more complex than I ordinarily want. I consider the GCACW series to be just about right. It's a system that is not super complex, but detailed enough to make for good gameplay and good operational realism. 4) I want a game that simulates the actual conflict as it was experienced by the commanders. I mean that I want to deal with the logistical aspects of an army. I want to have objectives that are commensurate with what the actual participants had in mind. I read, for example, John Erickson's two volume epic, "The Road to Stalingrad" and "The Road to Berlin". These books give a very detailed study of the Soviet Army throughout World War 2. Thus, for me, a good game should be able to simulate the realities of equipping a Russian Army as well as the difficulties faced by the German invaders. 5) Finally, I want a game that can be played more than once. That is, I want enough operational control that a different strategy might make a significant difference, and I want to have the desire to start over without feeling like it is more hassle than it is worth to try it again. With these five points in mind, I will address my impressions of Red Star Rising. With regard to the map and counters, I think that they are just perfect for this operational campaign. The mapboard is colorful, with terrain features being easily identifiable. I particularly like the fact that the Labels for significant cities are done in large letters, so that they are easily distinguishable across what is a large mapboard. Since, naturally, the whole thrill of the campaign is taking into account the entire theatre, I wanted the three separate mapsheets to fit together as seamlessly as possible. To accomplish this, I cut the three mapsheets to fit, mounted them with spray glue on two separate pieces of presentation cardboard, and then sprayed the surface with a clear protective gloss. It worked great and not only looks good, but gives more substance to the mapsheet, giving added weight to prevent the pieces coming apart, and counters being splayed out of position. The counters are very well done, using high gloss, traditional field colors for the respective armies, as well as black for the panzer tank corps, sharp red for shock and guards units, purple for the Finns, and olive for the Rumanians. The advantage of this color scheme is that particular units and armies are easier to identify at a glance, and blend nicely on the map as well. There are a large number of counters, but many of them are game markers or soviet combat strength counters, and do not clutter up the board since most of these are only placed when appropriate, and do not usually stay in the game from turn to turn. As far as solitaire play is concerned, this game works perfectly for this type of play. I am sure that this game would also be fantastic for 2 or more players. Of particular note are the carefully broken down phases of a turn. The marker on the board makes it handy to see what phase it is, so that leaving the game and coming back a day or two later causes no difficulty since you automatically know where you are in the turn. Turns can last a couple of weeks or a month, with summer campaign season being busier than the dead of winter. A full campaign is 40 turns long, although each turn will be more or less time consuming depending on what is going on in the overall war. The rules system is well done, with an uneven phase system that, in my opinion, captures the essence of fighting on the Eastern Front. This is not an easy task, given the complexity of the material, but the game system simulates the separate difficulties as experienced by both armies. For example, the Axis have no choice but to play aggressively from the get go in order to have a prayer of success. The Axis hold a complete advantage as the game starts, both in numbers and abilities of the individual units. However, numerical superiority is hampered by a uniquely challenging supply system, which is of primary concern from the outset. The course of the campaign sees the Soviets go from quite ineffective to ultimately lethal on a grand scale. The Axis are powerful but not capable of sustained losses, whereas the Soviets, albeit slower and more fragile, will gradually see the results of Soviet resources outstripping the German ability to replace losses. Without going into great detail, suffice it to say that the two armies will have to address and overcome their respective shortcomings from the outset in order to prevail. Soviet commanders will face the hard truth concerning the uncertainty and unreliability of their forces. Axis commanders will find that, as they advance deeper and deeper into Russia, their numerical superiority is quickly being stretched dangerously thin and momentum is hard to maintain as your armies are ground down from constant combat. I have read complaints that the Germans do not have "Leaders", whereas the Soviets can obtain "Leaders", albeit in a somewhat random system. My view is that, from the perspective of the German army, there is a certain level of resilience and reliability already factored into their superior mobility and uniformity which was painfully lacking on the Soviet side. While it is true that the Soviet leaders can be of some value, they tend to only guarantee that there will be casualties in whatever battle they participate in. This is not necessarily a good thing by any means, and more or less only assures the Soviets of some certainty of inflicting casualties when they advance en masse. One of the aspects of the game I particularly like is the ability to build up and break down units for both sides. Germans can formulate "Battlegroups", while Russians can refit army corps, creating Shock and Guards units. These unit transformations are simple, easy to accomplish, and allow more flexibility in tactics and strategy for both sides. The step loss system is also very easy, and creates no difficulty in play. I always found games like Anzio , where every individual unit had its respective step loss counterpart, to be more burdensome than necessary. Another game mechanic which serves to add realism is the Soviet ability to evacuate factory facilities during "Production" turns. Pipelines, ports, coal mines and factories serve to create a much more interesting strategic picture to the Campaign. That is, as the Soviet and Axis player, you actually can see where resources are located, and obtain or lose certain in game advantages depending on how you defend or conquer these facilities. What it does is force both players to look at the whole picture concerning where to attack and defend. This means that both players have to pay attention to these key strategic points when planning their respective movements. I won't deny that there are many abstractions calculated into the game. However, when dealing with such a complex subject, the fact that so many of the real factors associated with the campaign are considered at all is somewhat remarkable given the relatively easy instructions and playability of the overall game. Thus, while there are partisans, security divisions, parachute units, cavalry, air bases, a siege rail gun, supply depots, and headquarters, none of these various units cause a slew of complex rules. They are well integrated into the overall system, being both useful and interesting, without causing a series of headaches unworthy of the lesser role they play in the game. While I could go on with various subtleties that occur in the actual playing of the game, I hope that this is enough information to at least give a prospective purchaser some idea of the contents of the game. I have played through the campaign game twice as a solitaire endeavor. I have used this game's rules forum to get some clarification on a couple rule uncertainties. Adam Starkweather, game developer, has promptly answered any and all questions I have had in a timely and informative manner, and I genuinely appreciate his assistance, and the fact that he answers any questions personally. I expect that this game will be well received and am already looking at some other IGS games which are presently listed for sale on MMP's website, and others that are presently in development. Given my favorable experience with this game, I will likely buy A Victory Lost and preorder A Victory Denied "Joe Palmisano"