Many an hour of my youth was spent on this game. I found it fascinating and spent a long time looking for similar games but to no avail. A lot of people compare modern ‘war board games’ (like War of the Ring) to RISK, but as I see it the more accurate evolutionary trail leads back to Britannia. As far as my gaming experience is concerned, it seemed to be one of the first board war games that was actually set in a very specific time and place and had a reason for the conflict that was occurring.

The game tells the story of roughly a thousand years of British history, from the Roman Conquest up until the Battle of Hastings. Up to four players take on the role of a number of indigenous and invading tribes, each intent on conquering and settling a part of this green and pleasant land. Every turn covers a period of approximately 80 years and a time-line informs you when certain nations arrive in the game (which corresponds to their actual historical appearance). A chart on the board lists the order in which nations act each turn, providing they’ve entered the game at that point.

The winner of the game is determined by who has the most victory points at the end and victory points are primarily earned by taking and holding land. The mechanics of the game are quite simple, with battles being determined by dice rolls that are modified depending on the terrain the battle is being fought on or (very occasionally) the types of troops involved. There are also rules for population growth, submission and leaders.

It’s an unusual game in that victory points are deliberately earned in a lop-sided manner. For example, at the beginning of the game one of the players will be in control of the Romans, whilst the other players control a variety of local British tribes. Needless to say, the Roman player is going to kick all kinds of butt at the beginning of the game (if he doesn’t he’s in trouble!) and should earn significantly more victory points than the other players. To new players this can be a bit disheartening and make it look as though the chap controlling the Romans is going to have a run away win, but this won’t necessarily be the case. Most of the nations the Roman player gets to control for the rest of the game aren’t that spectacular (heck, as far as I can work out the Dubliners are just an ageing 5 piece folk band!) and each of the other players will have their own big scoring nation which should result in a big spike in their victory point acquirement chart.

Here’re my feelings on the game, split into positive aspects and aspects that might put some people off. I should probably state that as a kid I loved this game (it’s one of the very few games I’d ever consider playing solo) so that may well affect my feelings on it.

Good Points

Historical Accuracy. I’m telling you, this game should be on the National Curriculum. If they let kids play this in schools it’d make it a whole lot easier to visualise the history of Britain.

Replayability. The four players each get to control a set of four or five nations that are split into different colours. The colours all play significantly differently from each other and the game can give a very different experience depending which colour you’re playing. Due to the lop-sided way that victory points are earned it can also take a few plays before you can really judge who’s doing well an who’s not doing so well.

Strategy. This isn’t a tactical game, it’s very much a long-term strategy game. There are lots of options open to you without drowning you in rules and exceptions.

Components. There’s been a few different editions of Britannia but the one that’s currently in print is published by Fantasy Flight Games and is very good. The board looks great, with the British Isles depicted like an old-style parchment map (a few unclear areas of the board from previous editions have also been tidied up). The counters and cards are all really thick and have good artwork on them. As others have noted, the box insert for Britannia looks like it was designed for a completely different game and as my housemate would say, is “about as useful as a condom machine in the Vatican” but as far I’m concerned that’s no big issue. The rule book seems far longer than it needs to be, but it gets the job done.

Balance. For a game with such a lop-sided method of gaining victory points it seems remarkably well balanced. In my experience, red seems slightly easy to win with and blue seems slightly harder to win with, but there’s plenty of stats out there from tournaments that seem to suggest that all colours are pretty much even.

Drawbacks

The game takes a long time to play. This isn’t a problem as far as I’m concerned but could well be a problem for others. Our normal play time probably clocks in around the 3 hour mark.

Due to the lop-sided method of gaining victory points and the staggered way that different nations come into the game it can take a few plays before you really get the hang of how the game pans out. This can have a big effect on your strategy. This is fine if you’re prepared to play it a couple of times before you get the full picture (for want of a better phrase) but it may be off putting for some.

Some of my friends aren’t too fond of Britannia because they think it can be a bit 'samey'. I think this stems from the fact that set up and the order in which nations come into play is scripted. Personally I don’t have a problem with this at all as if you know what resources you have to play with I feel that it enables you to think more strategically as to how you’re going to use them.

It only really works with four players. There’s rules for three and five players but it’s nowhere near as good a game if you play with anything other than four.

*

Whilst this game certainly isn’t for everyone, personally I think it’s great. The designer also seems pretty active on these forums, which is always a bonus.