Mr President: Is GMT's sprawling solitaire boardgame unimpeachable or a one-termer?

Far be it from me to introduce pointless semantics – you in the back, stop laughing! – but that’s not solitaire, you weirdo! I’ll never understand how you wargamers think that chess can be a solitaire game. :)

If you’ve opened the floodgates for a bunch of you wargamer types to come in here and post about your exercises in beating yourselves while simultaneously losing to yourselves, I’m going to start engaging in some terribly earnest mockery. I might even resort to pointing out how ugly your counter corners are, but only if things get dire; I hate to resort to shaming a man into counter cutting.

But, yeah, Belisarius’s War looks like a cool little two-player game. Now hurry up and get your copy of Mr. President so we can compare notes.

There are about a dozen hard-coded loss conditions, most of which involve the US not managing the world stage. In fact, it seems like the basic design concept – as presented by the rules themselves – is that you win on the domestic board, and you lose on the world board, which implies to me it’s very much pushing the “US as world policeman” framework. For instance, the game has the usual hard-on about Iran getting a nuke being the end of the world (it’s an auto-loss if they’re at war with Israel).

Interestingly enough, it seems GMT was caught flat-footed by the Russian invasion, because one of the hard-coded loss conditions is Russia being at war with NATO. So it looks to me like there’s no way in Mr. President to model the current global situation (war between NATO and Russia de facto, if not de jure). I also have serious doubts about this system’s ability to model Trump’s election and administration, but we’ll see.

So while I agree that a lot of the domestic stuff seems really generic to the point of being Issue Track #1 and Issue Track #2, I suspect there are more specific politics baked into the international level. But I’m still reading through the rules and haven’t started playing yet.