Joan of Arc is part of genre that is new and gaining ground: war games with a euro twist. While some like Twilight Struggle have gained a lot of ground and respect, Joan of Arc has stayed in the shadows a bit. In attempting to portray the Hundred Years War with a level of abstraction (I’ll explain later) it takes on a Euro feeling. On the other hand diplomacy and battles over territory are more reminiscent of war games. The game has attracted both praise and harsh criticism, with most euro gamers finding it accessible while many grogs scoff at it. On this one I feel stuck in the middle, probably because I play a lot of wargames and euros.

Gameplay (20 out of 30): As one of six powers you try to control France in the 1300 and 1400s. Inevitably you will have to resort to war to achieve this and use diplomacy to gain allies and aid. There is a lot to like and dislike in this game so I’ll break it down.

Pros: All sides start off on an even footing and it is open in terms of negotiating so the game encourages creative strategies for victory. It is wide open for you to choose a path. I like that combat is a combination of cards and dice. Knowing when to conserve force and when to literally lay all of your cards on the table is important to the game.

Cons: Some of my negative criticism has to do with how the game abstracts history, making the theme seem pasted on save for event and character cards. Field battles being abstracted annoys me and robs players of what could have been a great experience. However, most of what I find suspect with Joan of Arc is the little things. Money becomes worthless late in the game as the number of castles available disappear. The character cards, while a great boon for your side, don’t come out enough to please me. In addition a player starting off with strong cards has a major advantage. Too many times I’ve seen a player’s hand stacked with mostly 3 level battle cards and thus unable to compete. While this has never happened to me I certainly sympathize. The biggest complaint is for the rulebook though, which is missing vital information such as the starting location of Brittany. You can find such information on the internet but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Components (9 out of 10): The map, while a little bland, it is clearly marked and the large size prevents clutter. The cards and pieces are all top quality. The castle pieces are a real plus.

Originality (2 out of 5): It is hard to put this into words, but I can’t shake the feeling that Joan of Arc is a lot like other games. My first impression is of an advanced version of Risk although this is unfair to Joan of Arc. On one hand it is different from Risk in that combat is decided my cards. However the events, personalities and specific strengths for each side lead me to say that Joan of Arc’s closest relative is Dune, except with a card battle system, poorly handled economics and the Hundred Years War. While none of this makes the game bad it just felt like it had been done before and better.

Historical Quality (2 out of 5): I do appreciate the emphasis on sieges, as that is a major reason why France lost every battle but won the war. Yet I’m troubled by how worthless field battles are. Any historian knows that while such battles were rare during medieval times they had a large impact on the wars fought. The battles of Crecy and Bannockburn certainly prove this. As I said earlier the theme feels pasted on to me. The characters are, except Joan, indistinguishable from each other and come out at random times, which strikes me as silly.

Overall (33 out of 50): Joan of Arc is a good alternative to Risk, Dune and Diplomacy but don’t rely on it to be a solid interpretation of the Hundred Years War or a game as great as Here I Stand or Twilight Imperium.