Over the past few years, I have become familiar with Cadet Games who has done some pretty interesting looking wargames on Kickstarter. Their first game was They Were Soldiers: Battle of the Ia Drang Valley followed by Nguyen Hue ’72: The 1972 Easter Offensive in Vietnam. They also did a successful Kickstarter in May 2022 for a game in a new series called Armies & Alliances: Arnhem ’44 – Operation Market Garden. On the back of that success, they now have the 2nd game in this series called Armies & Alliances: Blitzkrieg ’40 – The Battle for France which is currently on Kickstarter. I reached out to my contact with Cadet Games Kevin Talley, who works as their main game developer, Kickstarter coordinator, marketing guy and general jack of all trades to see if he could give us some insight into the design.

Grant: First off Kevin now that you’ve completed 4 successful Kickstarter campaigns for They Were Soldiers, Nguyen Hue ’72, Linebacker II and A&A: Arnhem how do you feel Cadet Games is coming along?

Kevin: We are moving a bit slower than we had hoped, actually. We have a backlog of designs now that are waiting for their turns on the Kickstart and Gamefound campaign roster.  It takes far less time to design and create all the files for a prototype game and then playtest it than it takes to create and execute the crowdfunding campaigns, get production samples, advise and manage production changes, wait on completed and assembled games to ship across the ocean and then complete transit to us – and then finally conduct shipping to all the backers. These things take a year once they finally make it “in line” for their turn. As an example, Blitz was on the table as a “rules near-completed” prototype back in late March of ’22, and here we have finally kicked off the campaign for it 20 months later!

Grant: What lessons have you learned that you have brought to bear on your new campaign? 

Kevin: Well, with our last 4 campaigns, they all seem to do very nicely when we leave them on for as long as possible. The advice is always to run a short campaign, but in our case – especially because we appeal to a narrow market segment – it seems that one of the biggest challenges we face is reaching people with awareness of the campaign in the first place. For whatever reason, we have had more success by running our campaigns for 60 days than to go for shorter periods, giving backers more time to become aware of the game so they can reserve their copies.

Grant: What is the focus of your new upcoming game Armies & Alliances: Blitzkrieg ’40 – The Battle for France?

Kevin: It is THE battle that truly defines the opening year of WWII in Europe. One of the greatest military campaigns in all of history, and the world’s introduction to what would eventually become known as combined arms doctrine (later “air-land battle”) in the 20th century. The Germans had quickly created an operational reality with ideas that were still theoretical for the other armies of the day – and it really showed in the first two years of the war in Europe. For this battle, the combined armies of Holland, Belgium, England and France face off against the Wehrmacht from the Dutch border to Saarbruken in a 10-turn contest to decide the war in the west!

Grant: What does the A&A in the title stand for? What is the focus of this new series?

Kevin: This new series is called the Armies and Alliances Series (A&A). Our first was Arnhem ’44 (available now). These are WWII campaign-level titles that use miniatures and low-complexity rules to re-create battles that made some of the most famous military history of all time. These games are designed to play quickly, present historically accurate orders of battle and detailed maps, use thoughtful mechanics that have genuine simulative value, and be fun! Like our Vietnam games, these games use large maps and miniatures instead of just cardboard counters – because WE like minis and big maps – though this one has both.

Grant: Is the A&A a play on Axis & Allies? What should that tell gamers about the design?

Kevin: Well, we like those games too. Our designs kinda have that vibe – and we ARE trying to make games that are low to medium complexity that use minis, so…there is that. I will say, though, that the depth of our designs goes just a bit further than those other games. We have terrain effects, ZOC, supply, slightly more sophisticated combat and movement systems and air rules, etc. in our games. So, we would be accurately described, I think, as the bridge between full-on wargames like a typical hex and counter game with a 40-page rulebook that takes a week and an Axis & Allies game – right in the middle.

Grant: Who is the designer of the game? What was his design inspiration?

Kevin: R.J. Mills does all of our designs. He wanted to do a batch of WWII games starting with Arnhem and the 1940 Campaign in the West, Barbarossa, Stalingrad and Kasserine…Leyte and Okinawa. The idea was to pickup the slack where AH/WotC had long-since stopped making operational-level campaign games for the Axis & Allies Series. They did D-Day, Bulge and Guadalcanal, but that was it. And it didn’t look like they would ever do any more. So, he thought maybe we could do some games that a lot of folks were hoping someone would make.

Grant: What was important from the history of the German Blitzkrieg to model in the game?

Kevin: This is the central question of the game design. The Germans REALLY beat down the Allies in this battle, but almost nobody thought it would go that way at the time – even the Germans were astonished at just HOW successful their plan and their people became…and what a complete disaster there was on the other side. After researching the battle, it became clear that trying to accurately re-create the truthful basics of the contest while preserving the possibility of the historical outcome would be a challenge. Both sides had pretty much the same strength in units, but one just got clobbered – doing just about everything possible to lose – while the other achieved a brilliant victory (doing almost everything perfectly to exceed even the wildest expectations of the OKW planners). Without forcing players into scripted moves that intentionally mandated a “re-creation”, it was going to be tough to faithfully create that same 1940 “canvas” upon which both players could then paint. The outcome needed to be based on player decisions, dice and the fog of war, but the German advantages in leadership, communication, air-ground force coordination, individual mission urgency and intensity at all levels, and especially speed – never mind a great plan that achieved strategic surprise – would somehow need to show up in the design.

It is not largely appreciated, but in the 1940 campaign, the actual combat strengths and firepower of the opposing forces were essentially the same (weapons, numbers, lethality, even armor and artillery), so combat factors and a typical combat system could not accurately model the German advantage. Because (unlike the 1991 Gulf War, for instance) their advantage was not to be found in that “material” aspect of the force comparison. So, the design started out by doing NOTHING to model the German advantage. We just played with the historical order of battle/setup and both sides’ units had all the same combat factors, C&C was identical, everyone could see all of the units on the board, there were no cards yet to affect possibilities, and movement allowances, etc. were the same for both sides. Of course, the Allies won – every time. The Germans couldn’t get past Antwerp, Liege, Dinant or Sedan.

Then we introduced the subtle aspects that modeled what we believed to be the real differences in the two forces, based on the historical record:

  • German “Blitz move” (1 more hex, after the combat phase, and ignores ZOC) for select units.
  • Allied first turn C&C delay (only 1st and 7th French Armies and all BEF, Belgians and Dutch can move normally on Allied T1).
  • 2 Cards for the German and only one for the Allied player during their own turns (each both still play one card during the opposing player’s turn).
  • German “hidden unit” dynamic (up to 10 units kept in a special map box that can deploy from any in-supply German-controlled hex between T1and T4).

This combo of adjustments was progressively introduced in playtesting, resulting in a game that CAN indeed replicate history. With just these few relatively small changes, the differences between the historical forces are there – but can the German player capitalize and turn them into a decisive result? Or will the Allied player hand him a crushing defeat? It can go either way. Very cool. Even for players who are both equally familiar with the history. THAT was the game we wanted.

Grant: What is the general flow of play and the Sequence of Play?

Kevin: Well, the Germans go first – starting with Card draw (they get 2 from the deck) and then return their CAP and INT air sorties, do new Air Mission assignments, Movement, Combat, Blitz move and then they place their CAP and Interdiction sorties that will be flying during the Allied player’s turn. Then the Allied player goes – Card draw & Air returns, new Air, Movement, Combat and they place CAP and Interdiction flights. Then the turn marker on the map moves to the next game turn and everything repeats. Reinforcements come in during the movement phases for either side. The Germans have that Blitz move that the Allies don’t get.

Grant: What is the scale of the game? Force structure of the units?

Kevin: The basic unit is a division in most cases (there are a few regiments, like the Grossdeutschland Motorized Infantry, and even some battalions of German airborne troops). Even divisions are often maneuvered and fought as Corps, though, because of how the Corps arty assets are deployed and how the stacking rules affect the combat system. The map is 9 miles/hex, so having a Corps occupying a hex is a very realistic scale of units and terrain for this campaign.

Grant: What different units do players have available?

Kevin: There are Paratroops, Infantry, Armor, Recon, Mechanized, Artillery, 88 Flak Arty, Siege Arty, Fighters and Bombers – and “Fortress” units. 11 different unit types total. There are actually 25 different miniature types for the design, because each nation has its own infantry figure, tank, aircraft, etc. The Germans have Pz III’s and the French Char B-1 B’s, for example. There are also counters, so for players who would prefer to use traditional counters only, they can leave the plastic off the map. We are learning that some players like everything about Cadet designs except the minis – so now we are taking that into consideration.

Grant: What are the Reinforcement Cards used for?

Kevin: Great question. We’re not actually doing those “hard cards” this time – but rather a couple of “playbooks” that contain both the Allied and German Orders of Battle and the setup guide for both armies – along with their reinforcement schedules, some helpful player aids and perhaps even game card indexes for both players. The KS campaign shows an example of one page of the German OOB (Rundstedt and Army Group A). You can see from that example they show the players what units and counters go where at start. In the Arnhem game we used those thick cardboard OOB cards, but for Blitz we are gonna help the players save some table space – particularly because almost all of the units will be on the map at start (unlike Arnhem which was the opposite), so really no need to have them lined up on flat cards laying on the table.

Grant: How do Zones of Control affect movement and supply?

Kevin: Units entering ZOC’s must stop, units leaving ZOC’s pay 1 extra point to do so and units cannot move directly from a ZOC into another ZOC (unless it’s a German “Blitz move”). Pretty standard ZOC rules. Supply trace cannot go through a ZOC unless there is a friendly unit there, which negates the enemy ZOC effect for supply purposes.

Grant: How does combat work?

Kevin: Combat is cool. And simple. Same system as with our Arnhem game, except the CF’s for the units are slightly different because of the divisional unit scale of the combat. Basically, the units have different attack and defense values, which can also be affected by terrain. Rather than have the units come off the map, little number markers go onto an illustrated battle board for both attacking and defending units in the combat. Then each side rolls a die. 

The combination of all the combat factors for the side is added to that side’s DR and the total corresponds to a value on the simple CRT – which then has that side’s national roundel to mark the applicable CRT row. The differential between the sides on the CRT decides the combat – and the loser takes either step loss(es) or a possible retreat. Super easy (and also easy to keep track of the mods for terrain, since little number markers go right on the board instead of having to apply a complex series of “+ or –“ DR mods). Once you do one combat you will easily be able to figure out precisely and quickly how to anticipate and setup your attacks, and the ideal defensive arrangements for supporting fires and terrain. There is an illustrated example from the rulebook in the campaign info on KS.

Grant: How are cards used in the design? Can you show us a few examples?

Kevin: The cards allow for special rules exceptions, combat factor increases and true events that affected the historical campaign. The German player gets 2 for their turn and can play 1 during the Allied turn, while the Allied player only gets 1 during their own turn and 1 more during the German turn. A typical example would be the card “Lt. DeWispelaere”, which cancels the use of a particular crossing hexside for movement and/or attack purposes when presented by the Allied player during the German turn (they would likely play it either at the beginning of the German movement phase or at the instant of a declared combat by armored/mech units across a river at such a hexside). The card is based on a famous event that happened on May 12th near Houx on the Meuse. Obviously, the play of such a card at the right moment in the campaign could have serious consequences, but the shuffle and draw determine if such a card will be available to the Allied player when it counts. Such is the “fog of war.”

Another such card is “Bruno Loerzer – II Fliegerkorps”, which allows the German player to attack the same hex with BOTH an air bombardment attack AND air-supported combat against the defenders in the same turn – normally it is one or the other. Such a card played at the right time and place can create a breakthrough that might become strategically significant! Again, this card reflects an actual event that made a difference in the real campaign. Cards can affect air operations, retreats, movement, combat, losses, terrain effects, die rolls, supply – you name it. They are an important design element, and the shuffle guarantees no two games will be the same.

Grant: What is the makeup of the Combat Results Table?

Kevin: The CRT is super-simple. Two columns – one for the attacker and one for the defender. 6 Rows (from 0 hits to 5 hits), based on the combined total of each side’s combat factors and die roll.  You put a national roundel on the row that applies. That’s it. The rules are printed right on the CRT explaining how to apply “hits” to one or both sides, based on the “hit” differential. There are a couple of rules for mandatory losses when both sides score 4+ hits and a retreat protocol for the last defender in a hex, and all that is printed right on the CRT – again, no rulebook needed.

Grant: Who are the artists on the project? What about their style fits with this game?

Kevin: Marc VonMartial does our maps – we really like his artistic style. The maps he does for us have the look of “animated scale reality as seen from above.” It isn’t made to look like a real picture…but more of a videogame-esque graphic treatment of terrain detail. The best description I can think of is a more hi-res graphic treatment of the battlegrounds from games like Panzer General II or III, but seen from above instead of a 3D slant – and with very precise detail and coloration. We all just love the way his maps turn out. It really complements our emphasis on minis and the whole attraction of a miniature scale battle happening on the tabletop.

The rest of the rulebook, box art, game card and other graphics for all of our designs is done by R.J. – he always credits his mom in the rulebook for her essential assistance in having brought him into being – but he really does all that stuff. And our 3D designs for the minis are all done by a very accomplished guy who will remain a proprietary secret for now!

Grant: How does the Air Phase work?

Kevin: First, at the beginning of each player turn, any aircraft that were flying CAP or Interdiction missions during the other player’s turn go back to their airbases. And then the player gets to decide how they are going to use their air assets for this turn. They choose what air missions to assign aircraft to and then they either place those planes at an enemy airbase (air superiority sorties) or they place them in the appropriate map box(es) now or use them as interceptors vs. enemy aircraft flying CAP or Interdiction missions – sending those enemy planes back to their bases and then they (interceptors) go into the “mission flown” box on the map themselves. At the end of the player turn, there is another phase where any planes that were assigned to fly cap or interdiction move from the map boxes onto the map (they will then fly over their assigned sectors during the other player’s turn unless sent home by enemy interceptors). Sounds busy but it is actually very simple once you play it for a turn.

Grant: How does Air Combat work?

Kevin: The air system is very similar to the old original Avalon Hill France 1940 Bookcase game. Old school folks familiar with that design will recognize the mission types and sequence immediately, but there are differences. There are 6 mission types: 

  • Air Superiority Missions (your aircraft try to destroy the enemy’s air forces);
  • Interception (your fighter aircraft send enemy CAP and Interdiction sorties back to their bases);
  • Close Air Support (your bombers will participate in attacks with your ground units against enemy units defending in map hexes);
  • Ground Attack (your bombers will attack targets using the bombardment table without friendly ground forces participating);
  • Interdiction (your bombers will deny enemy access and/or movement through a particular area by exerting a ZOC from their assigned mission hex);
  • Combat Air Patrol (CAP – your fighters fly cover for your ground operations and prevent any CAS or Ground attack sorties over their assigned patrol area)

The Germans have a much larger air force than the allies (and this was true historically – really their biggest material advantage). But the way the air rules work, it is hard to destroy even a small part of anyone’s air forces without dedicating most of one’s air resources to that end for an entire two-day turn (assuming the enemy airfields are even in range). In playtesting, most of the time both players are playing a cat and mouse game with interception, CAP and Interdiction, while the Germans can use their advantage in bomber aircraft to fly some very important Close Air Support missions. The whole air aspect of the game really complements the ground action and has a very “historical” contribution to the contest. Both players have to learn how to employ air successfully with this design – it isn’t automatic, especially for the Allies. And the German must learn to master their interdiction capabilities if they are going to try and repeat the Blitz dynamic of the 1940 Wehrmacht. All this requires thinking ahead, because the mission assignments have to be determined before any of the turn’s moves or combat outcomes are known.

Grant: What does the map look like? What strategic considerations on movement and attack are created by the layout?

Kevin: The map is the whole area of the historic campaign, from the Maginot line opposite Saarbrucken in the south to Paris in the west, the channel coast, Apeldoorn and the Dutch border in the North and the Rhine and Moselle rivers in the east. The scale is 9 miles/hex and there are several typical terrain types. Contemplating the campaign, the German will face exactly the challenge that the OKW faced. Unless the German player does something to prevent it, the Allies have enough force to create “the continuous front” – in depth, with reserves – from the powerful Maginot line forts west of Saarbrucken all the way up to Antwerp. There is only so much room to execute something decisive – a single or double envelopment (?), dissecting the Allied forces before they can consolidate in Belgium (?), how much to dedicate for Holland (?), what to use the limited airborne force for (?), where should the main effort be (?) and how can surprise be achieved?

For the Allies, winning requires a different set of questions, because there is enough – but just enough – to hold if the applied reserve matches the place of the enemy’s main effort. This is not automatically known early in the contest because of the “fog of war” hidden unit dynamic, but the Allied player may have their own plans. Between the distances involved in correcting mistakes, and the application of interdicting air units, the Allied player might easily “guess wrong” in an unrecoverable way, as with history.

In short, as with the historical campaign, the map (and the campaign area) is small enough to invite confidence that one’s plans are ideal, but still just large enough that one can be catastrophically wrong in both their plans and dispositions!

Grant: What scenarios are included?

Kevin: The scenario for the game is always the same – May 10th – 29th, the 1940 Campaign in the West. The Wehrmacht vs. Holland, Belgium, England and France. Now, one could play a separate “Battle for Holland” scenario fairly easily, I suppose, where the German player controls only the 18th Army and the Luftwaffe Fallschirmjager and airlanding units (and, say, two of their Fliegerkorps) against the four Dutch Corps with their arty units. That might be a good way to practice as a solo experience for the German – since the Allied player in such a scenario would not really get to do much. Might just include that in the German playbook – still room and time for edits!

Grant: How is the game won?

Kevin: The German player’s progress relative to history determines victory. To win, the Germans must first defeat Holland and Belgium, or they automatically lose (a decisive Allied win). Accepting that the Germans defeat both Holland and Belgium, the scale of victory then depends on how many French and BEF units are destroyed, how many French towns and cities are in German hands, and what the overall loss ratio (German units to Allied units) has become by the end of the last turn (there are only 10 turns).

Grant: What has been the experience of your playtesters?

Kevin: Well, the Allied players really liked playing the first few prototype play-throughs, where both sides had all the same rules and all the units moved and fought with the same combat and movement factors. Then we started dialing up the German “differences” with the Blitz move and the hidden units and the cards and the delayed Allied T1 response for the 2nd and 9th Armies, the reserves and the Second French Army Group…and the Allied players developed new morale and maneuver/planning challenges, while the Germans discovered some truly inspired levels of play!  We are very happy now that we have a game that feels very balanced in terms of “player agency” but still gets the force comparison realities of the campaign right.

Grant: What stretch goals are available?

Kevin: Perhaps we at Cadet Games are not the best marketers, but we believe in making the product great, with all the mounted maps and the full complement of minis for any game we produce. As such, we don’t care to offer some “lesser version” of our products while waiting for the pledge campaign to “unlock” the desired version with the production quality we desire. So far, our other titles have been successful campaigns by simply offering multiple copies at a savings so that players can choose to pledge for multiple copies for gifts, game clubs, retail or whatever. This also greatly simplifies production and fulfillment, for there is no easy way to produce a one of a kind of 100% completely assembled and shrink-wrapped product while also creating an inventory of ALMOST the same product – but without x or y in the box/unmounted mapsheets/etc. for some lesser pledge level.

Perhaps we will learn more about how to successfully use this aspect of crowdfunding campaign design in the future, but for now it isn’t something we focus much effort towards.

Grant: When can we expect the game to be fulfilled?

Kevin: We have learned now that we must allow for approximately a year from the time the campaign goes live to when we can realistically expect to be shipping the games out to the pledge crowd. Part of that is just completing the campaign, some of it is in product quality adjustments and inspections after a production sample is in house, and some of it is in the inevitable production delays that seemingly always slow things down by about 2 months from the original timetable. Then you have shipping across the water and a final month or so after the container vessel unloads, “de-vans” and the truck brings the pallets. As such, we are anticipating a realistic delivery for the holiday season in 2024. If it ends up moving along a bit quicker – all the better, for we have Barbarossa ’41 waiting for its turn next!

Thank you for your time in answering our questions Kevin and for the great care you guys are taking with these games to tell a fun and interesting part of history.

If you are interested in Armies & Alliances: Blitzkrieg ’40 – The Battle for France, you can back the project on the Kickstarter page at the following link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/647106057/aanda-blitzkrieg-40-the-battle-for-france?ref=discovery_category_newest

-Grant