To immediately jump to the Kickstarter Campaign page of the game go here:

Michal: Please tell us a little about yourself Clint. What do you do for a living, what games do you play? Also, what is your role in the design and publication of the game?

Clint: I am a high school history teacher at a Catholic high school here in Australia. I was born in 1988 (so turning 37 this year) and I’m married with kids. So, wargame design is a part-time pursuit for me, as it is for most designers. I manage to cram in time in the evenings and weekends to work on my games. Although I’ve been playing board games and toying with board game design for about 20 years, I only got serious about it since 2020. Covid lockdowns gave me time to really focus on making functional prototypes and I learned a lot by reading or listening to other designers. I am especially inspired by Volko Ruhnke, David Thompson, Mark Herman, Cole Wehrle, Jamey Stegmaier and many others.

My role in One Hour WW2 is the game designer. I came up with the idea, made a functioning prototype and rulebook and then sent it out to various publishers. Several publishers wanted the game, but I decided Worthington would be the best fit. Game design is never done alone – this game is a result of a hard work by my developer Mark Wylie and by graphic designers employed by Worthington. At the time of writing (June 2024) the Kickstarter for One Hour WW2 has been launched and reached its target within 1 hour. It is expected that the game will be finished and sent to backers by February 2025. Worthington have done a great job on this front – they have launched more than 50 successful Kickstarter campaigns so they know what they are doing!

Michal: Now, as for the game, what inspired “One Hour World War II”?

Clint: The idea for this project was sparked by a random post I stumbled upon on Twitter (now “X”). A design studio in California named Hissy Cat was hosting a postcard game design jam, where participants had a few months to create a game that could fit on a postcard. Intrigued by this concept, I immediately decided to join the challenge. My first game wasn’t One Hour WW2 but rather ETO (European Theatre of Operations), which focused on the Western Front from 1944 to 1945. ETO shared many mechanics with One Hour WW2, such as small unit density, minimal reliance on luck, and strategic decision-making on a compact map.

I later discussed ETO with Major Ed Farren from the British Army, who enjoyed the game and suggested expanding it to cover all major WWII theaters: the Mediterranean, the Pacific, and the Eastern Front. This idea appealed to me and at one point, I considered releasing One Hour WW2 as four interconnected postcard games. There would be some advantages to this – these games would be very cheap and portable. But they would require additional rules to join them together. Ultimately, I chose to create a single game that encompassed the entire war. Similar to ETO, I wanted it to be quick to play, with straightforward rules but intense, meaningful player interactions. Starting in early 2023, I developed a prototype and quickly garnered interest from several publishers. Worthington Games stood out as the perfect match, and Mark Wylie, my developer there, provided crucial support throughout the design process. The final product was crafted through our collaborative efforts despite the challenge of different time zones (me in Australia and Mark in the USA).

I should also elaborate on the original design goals for One Hour WW2. In essence, this game is a response to Axis and Allies. While I have fond memories of Axis and Allies, which introduced me to wargaming during my teenage years and provided countless hours of enjoyment, it has significant drawbacks. The game heavily depends on luck, takes an inordinate amount of time to complete, and its victory conditions are nearly unattainable within a reasonable timeframe, especially in the Global 1940 edition. It also lacks any realistic logistics rules. There are no supply lines or strategic movement, making the gameplay feel less authentic. For instance, in Axis and Allies it takes Soviet infantry in Siberia three years to march to Moscow, given the six-month-per-turn structure. The Axis powers are overpowered, while the Soviets and USA are underpowered, which are common complaints among players.

So, my goal with One Hour WW2 was to create a game that would appeal to a broad range of wargamers, including those who enjoy Axis and Allies, but without being entirely unrealistic. I aimed to attract even the most discerning wargamers, the Grognards, by offering a game that, despite potential grumbles about scale and historical accuracy, would still be engaging and historically plausible within a short playtime. By making the game playable in just an hour, I hoped to ensure that players would give it a try and discover that the outcomes closely mirror historical events.

Michal: What are the key components of the game?

Clint: The game has a fairly short list of components. There is a map (hard mounted, 22” by 17”). It will also have a rulebook, a player aid and a quick start guide – this is a 2-page introductory booklet that can help you get the game on the table within an hour or so of opening the box.

Then there are the 5 nation sheets – one each for Germany, Japan, the UK, the USA and the Soviet Union. These provide each player with a menu of Actions and Responses (more on these later).

Then there is the counter sheet. There are markers for the Political Will of each side (this functions like inverse Victory Points), turn order and the current turn (i.e. current year, from 1940 to 1945). There are also special action markers, which are used in the optional advanced rules to add a bit of spice to the game.

On the counter sheet are 58 unit counters, representing the armies and fleets of the various nations. Here is a breakdown of the units:

  • Germany: Germany has seven level 1 armies, two level 2 armies and two level 1 fleets. The German player also commands Italy, so their unit roster includes a level 1 Italian army and a level 1 Italian fleet. So, the Germans have a total of thirteen units.
  • Japan: Japan has six level 1 armies, three level 1 fleets and a level 2 fleet.  The Japanese have a total of ten units.
  • UK: The UK has four level 1 armies, one level 2 army, three level 1 fleets and a level 2 fleet. The UK player also commands France, so they have the single level 1 French army as well. This gives the UK a total of ten units.
  • USA: The mighty US of A has five level 1 armies, one level 2 army, four level 1 fleets and one level 2 fleet. The US player also commands China, so they have two level 1 Chinese armies as well. This gives the USA a total of fourteen units.
  • Soviet Union: The Soviets have eight level 1 armies, two level 2 armies and a single level 1 fleet. This is eleven units in total.

Here are the unit counters – the artwork is clear and crisp so you can easily see what’s what. Level 2 armies are depicted as tanks while level 2 fleets are depicted as aircraft carriers.

Michal: Can you elaborate a little about the game mechanics?

Clint: The core mechanics of the game relate to the action economy. Each Nation gets a different number of Action markers – the Allies will get more as the game goes on. Action markers represent a combination of economic might, logistical capability, leadership and overall efficiency. They are spent on both Actions and Responses and refresh each turn.

All Nations have access to the same four Actions:

  • Build: Shifting units from Spent to Reserve on your Nation Sheet, or from Reserve to the map. This is how you get “boots on the ground” and get exhausted units refreshed, ready for battle.
  • Offensive: Moving units into enemy spaces and fighting battles. This is how you take ground and ultimately win.
  • Strategic Move: Shifting units any distance among controlled spaces that are in supply. You would do this when you need to re-orient your overall strategic posture, such as the USA reallocating forces from the European to the Pacific Theatre
  • Upgrade: Shift one of your three Upgrade tracks one space to the right, making the associated Action more powerful. The three tracks are Build, Air Force (which affects Armies in battle) and Naval Aviation (which affects Fleets in battle).

Responses are similar to Actions in that you spend an Action marker to play them. There are a few big differences though:

  • Responses interrupt the turn sequence. When another Nation plays an Action and your Nation has a Response listed next to that Action, you may jump in and play your Response regardless of the turn order.
  • While every Nation has the same four Actions, the Responses are different for each Nation and many of them are unique. Each Nation has between three and eight Responses to use. They are one of the primary ways that asymmetry is built into the design and include a range of historical patterns and events. For example, the Soviets and Germans can use the “Counter-Offensive” Response against each other – this reflects the back-and-forth attacks and counter-attacks of the Eastern Front. The UK and USA can use “Code Breaking” to change the turn order. The Japanese can use “Island Defence” to put up even stiffer resistance to US Offensives in the Pacific. The USA can use “Lend Lease” to build up Soviet units in Reserve.

Michal: How do players determine victory?

Clint: There are three distinct paths to victory in the game. The first one involves Political Will. This is a measure of each side’s willingness to continue the war – it starts high but goes down throughout the game.

The fast way to win is by forcing your enemy down to 0 Political Will. It is degraded each turn based on enemy control of your own victory spaces. So, you can pursue an aggressive strategy of pushing hard on all fronts, hoping to break the enemy’s resolve before they can form an effective counter-strategy. The Axis is more likely to choose this path.

The Allies have a second victory condition: capturing both Germany and Japan. This can be achieved swiftly if the Axis are caught off guard but usually it requires a slow, methodical advance toward the enemy capitals.

However, these types of victories are relatively rare. Most games are decided by the Political Will score at the end of 1945. In numerous play-tests, the difference in scores was often 2 or less, making for very close and hard-fought battles right up to the final turn.

Some players might find it frustrating that the Axis can be reduced to just a few spaces on the map yet still “win.” This reflects historical priorities. As the Allied player, your goal is to achieve what the Allies did historically: occupy Germany and defeat it completely, control Europe and the Pacific, with Japan barely holding on. For instance, if you’ve mostly defeated the Axis but Japan still controls Australia, India, and the Philippines, or if you’ve occupied Japan but Germany still holds a significant part of Europe, you haven’t achieved total victory by the end of 1945.

This isn’t just a gameplay mechanic. The war severely strained and exhausted the Allied powers. Britain sacrificed its empire, the Soviets lost tens of millions of men, and only the USA emerged relatively unscathed. If the war was prolonged into 1946 or beyond it would have sorely tested the resolve and resources of these nations even further. Would American and British taxpayers continue to fund the war? Would Russia continue its massive loss of life? Probably, but at an immense cost that might have been unacceptable to their governments.

As the Axis player, your objective is to fight fiercely for every inch of territory until the Allies are forced to capture the Reichstag or launch devastating bombing raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I should point out that nuclear weapons are not a distinct rule in the game unless you use the optional “Special Actions and Responses” rules. However, American Strategic Bombing against Japan is extremely powerful. This requires controlling the North Pacific sea space, symbolizing the capture of strategic islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. By the time you’re bombing Japan it’s likely 1945 and you’ve already decimated their fleets. Additionally, the Soviets launched a major offensive into Japanese-occupied Manchuria in 1945, aiding in Japan’s surrender. In the game this would be represented by a Soviet Offensive Action from Siberia to China in the final turn, often tipping the balance of Political Will against the Axis.

Michal: World War II was the biggest conflict in human history so far. How did you manage to condensate it in just one hour?

Clint: Great question! The first thing was simplifying the map. I looked at a world map and divided it into a number of spaces. I then kept cutting the spaces down to the absolute bare minimum that would still allow the significant strategic decisions of World War Two to be considered. For example, if the USA decides to go after Germany, it will have the option to go for a Mediterranean strategy (North Africa > Mediterranean > Italy > Germany) and/or a Northwest Europe strategy (UK > North Sea > France > Germany). In the end, I cut the map down to 31 spaces, including land and sea. Could I have cut it down further? Maybe, but then I would be missing some of the critical decision points of the war.

Then, I had to work on the play time. This was done by basically backward mapping the desired play time onto a number of discrete actions. So, if each action physically takes 30-60 seconds to resolve, the game needs about 80 actions in total to keep to the one hour limit. So, the number of Action markers available to each nation is calibrated to keep within this limit and still give each nation historically plausible options. To be more precise, the game will include an absolute maximum of 87 Actions/Responses. Of these, Japan will get a maximum of 12 over the course of the game. This is enough for the Japanese to pursue all of their historical war aims according to the scale of the map – at least 3 major battles the US Navy, the occupation of China plus attacks on India, the Philippines and Australia. In contrast, the USA might get 20 Actions/Responses over the course of a game. Again, this is enough for them to carry out their historical strategies, including simultaneous campaigns in Italy, France and the Pacific in 1944-45.

With the map and play time constrained in these very clear ways, the final limitations I imposed were on the battle system. This had to be absolutely simple and quick to resolve – despite my desire to delve into the details of large-scale combat operations at this time! So, the combat system is basically this: add up the strengths of your units in the battle (they all have 1 or 2, so the math is easy). Then add bonuses, such as your Air Force track. Then commit reserves, which means spending units from your nation sheet to boost your score. The highest total score wins and inflicts 1 loss on the enemy. That’s it. There are a few nuances to do with amphibious landings and you may include dice to add a bit of luck, but the combat system is essentially about overall strength and the crucial decision to commit reserves or not. Players will certainly pick it up within a few minutes.

To sum up this answer, the game condenses WW2 by ruthlessly cutting down the map size, limiting the number of player actions to keep within the timeframe and using an extremely streamlined and decision-focused combat system.

Michal: Now, as for “One Hour World War II” itself, what makes this game unique?

Clint: Well, first of all is the obvious answer – this is one of the only games in the world that lets you play the entire Second World War in an hour!

But there are some more unique features. This game has almost zero downtime. Players are pretty much constantly engaged in the struggle. This is because each individual Action is fairly quick to resolve, and because you can usually interrupt each other’s turns with Responses. For example, a single Build Action chosen by Germany could result in the USA and UK jumping in with a Strategic Bombing Action. A Soviet Action like Offensive might be met with a German Response, like Counter-Offensive. Because your own nation’s Responses are often listed on other nation’s sheets, you are always looking over at your enemy’s side of the table to see if you can mess with them. These things could have been handled with a deck of cards, but I chose openly displayed action menus to force players to interact with each other more visually and directly.

One Hour WW2 is also one of the very few wargames with little or no randomness. You can play with dice (which can add a 0, +1 or +2 to your combat score), but I prefer to play dice-free. This makes the game like chess – and equally challenging. When there is no luck involved, the conflict is decided by pure strategy. Playing dice-free One Hour WW2 is a real brain-burner against an experienced opponent!

There is some nice little engine building in the game as well. The upgrade track lets you boost one of 3 tracks – Build, Air Force and Naval Aviation. You can customize your nation to specialize in production, battles on land or battles at sea. Even in the short play time, you can make investments early in the game that pay off late in the game. Because it involves shifting coloured wooden cubes and minimal luck, you could easily describe this game as a wargame-euro hybrid or “weuro”.

Finally, I think the design excels at showing the asymmetric positioning of the 5 major powers of the war. Each of them plays totally differently. For example, the Naval Aviation track is a high priority for Japan, while the Soviet Union will rarely touch it. The single German Fleet has a totally different strategic purpose than the four UK Fleets. The USA has a lot of armies but will take until 1945 to actually get them all on the front-line. In contrast, Germany starts with a huge force, including two of the powerful level 2 armies on the map from turn 1. This is all handled without the game feeling bloated with special rules.

Michal: How are you going to publish the game and where the players interested in the project can get more information?

Clint: At the time of writing, the game is being funded by a Kickstarter campaign. It reached the funding goal within the first hour, but the campaign will go until 16th June so you can still get a better price before the game goes to normal retail price with Worthington. The link is here:

One Hour World War II by Worthington Publishing — Kickstarter

Michal: What are the future plans for you? Any new designs / games in preparation?

Answer: Oh yes, absolutely! I have 3 other designs that are keeping me busy:

1. Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-48: This has been covered in detail on this very blog, but to recap it is an asymmetric alternate history game strongly inspired by the COIN series, set in post-1945 Germany. The Werwolves were Nazi insurgents and form the game’s titular faction. There is also the Edelweiss Movement (nationalist but anti-Nazi German insurgents), the Allies and the Soviets. As well as being focused on insurgency and counter-insurgency, the game has some Cold War features, like the threat of escalation between the superpowers. This game has just “made the cut” with Legion Wargames and will go into production in late 2024 or early 2025.

2. Cursed Soldiers: This is a working title and may change in the future, but basically it’s a game about the Polish Underground from 1942 to 1947. It will be for 1 to 4 players, each one representing one of the political/paramilitary factions vying for power in occupied Poland. These are the Nationalists, Agrarians, Home Army and Communists. The Germans and Soviets are in the game, but as “bots” which the players collectively fight against rather than playable factions in their own right. Despite being based on an insurgency, it has nothing in common with the COIN series by Volko Ruhnke and uses a totally original game engine which I have been tinkering with over the last year.

3. Gallipoli: Ordered to Die: This is a fast-playing game – just like One Hour WW2. It is based on the Gallipoli campaign of World War One, where Australians, New Zealanders, British and other Allied troops landed on the beaches of the Dardanelles in 1915, trying to decisively defeat the Ottoman Turks. It is hugely significant in Australia and New Zealand, and the fighting was characterized by enormous losses and extremely difficult terrain. This game has 3 scenarios (each plays in an hour) and uses very simple rules with little to no luck and straightforward action selection. It will be released by the Dietz Foundation in 2025. Thanks!

Michal: Thank you very mcuh for this interview Clint! And good luck!