Review Hegemony: Lead You Class to Victory

 Note : the game is complex and it is not easy to describe it in words. However, I will try to do a review as it is worth it.

 If you're interested in Hegemony, I'd highly recommend taking a look at Heavy Cardboard's recent stream showing the main gameplay elements; this is better to see with your own eyes than in text format.

 So, let's begin.

 Hegemony (or more precisely, Hegemony: Lead You Class to Victory) is a new kickstarter project from Hegemonic Project Games, a company new to the market, created specifically for the launch of Hegemony. According to the Kickstarter page, the company has a lofty goal to "create flooring that inspires people and helps them learn more about the world around them." In particular, Hegemony tries to connect the world of board games with politics and economics.

 It cannot be said that this is the first attempt of its kind; there are already a lot of political and/or economic issues. However, Hegemony differs in that the players are asymmetric factions competing with each other within the same state, and not just abstract competitors (say, merchant guilds or political parties). Players take on the roles of the working class, middle class, capitalists, or the state itself.

 A couple of games from Leder Games are mentioned here: "Root" and "Vast" - also asymmetrical games with active interaction between factions. You can partially mention the games of the COIN series, but in Hegemony there is no direct conflict, unlike the examples listed above. The struggle is political and competitive. Each group tries to become the most successful by gaining the most victory points.

 The methods of achieving victory vary greatly. The working class seeks to consume goods and form trade unions. The middle class also tends to consume goods, but they also get rewards for owning companies and exporting goods. Capitalists get almost all the rewards for accumulating capital.

 As for the state, it seeks to please everyone; its method of obtaining PO depends on its reputation (legitimacy) in the eyes of other factions, with only the two lowest reputations of the three being considered.

 All factions can also gain PO by promoting national policies that are beneficial to them. And this is where the game turns from just a complex economic euro into something special. The field has a policy scale with seven tracks that change the rules of the game.

 For example, one of the tracks determines the minimum wage that companies are forced to pay. Another determines the amount of taxes; yes, there are taxes in the game and they have to be calculated every round. Actually, most players will have to calculate two types of taxes: on their business and on their income. The third controls foreign trade, including the fee (or lack thereof) for imports when buying goods from a foreign market. Other tracks determine how many state-owned companies can be in the game, how much the state takes for health care and education (these are the resources that the middle and working class consume for social security, as well as to change the quantitative and qualitative composition of their workforce). There is even an immigration track that determines how often new workers appear in the game.

 All of these mechanics may seem like a scary cracker, but in practice they are the main source of conflict in the game. Take, for example, the painful issue of public health care. As a rule, the player for the working class wants to achieve cheap or free health care, because he needs it for PO and for the growth of the worker population. Capitalists naturally want to make it expensive: partly because cheap health care is financed by high taxes for capitalists, and partly in order to make more profit on the domestic market from their private health care. The middle class may support the former or the latter depending on whether it seeks to sell or buy health care services. As for the state... it's not easy here. If health care is cheap, the government gets more revenue through taxes and also gets a PO every time someone buys health care from them. But if it becomes too cheap, the state can go bankrupt or waste all the resources that may be needed in the event of a crisis.

 And it all boils down to a basic production-consumption engine: you send workers to various businesses, and they produce goods. However, the basic engine also has its own nuances, due to which strategies are formed.

 Yes, the game does not limit you to the standard "1 worker = 1 action". Each player has a hand of 8 cards and they take turns playing one card for each of the 5 game rounds. When played, they either activate the special action listed on the card, or discard it to play a standard action: open a business, place some workers, arrange a vote to change one of the aforementioned policy tracks. A total of 6 actions can be played per round, leaving 2 cards for the next round.

 Also, only two of the four factions have workers, and only three of the four factions regularly do business.

 Capitalists have the most productive businesses. They can also mechanize them to further increase production. However, they do not have their own workers, so they have to rely on middle or working class workers. Capitalists have several ways to temporarily "freeze" the worker in the business they want, but otherwise they are forced to compete with the businesses of the middle class and the state.

 The middle class has both workers and businesses. The latter are not as productive as capitalists, but do not depend on other players: owner-employees do not demand payment and control their own production. They can also hire workers from the working class, but it is not easy for them to offer competitive wages. Also, middle-class workers can work for the business of capitalists or the state.

 Public businesses are less efficient than the private sector, but instead offer higher wages, so it's easier for them to hire workers. However, the state can open a maximum of 3 businesses unless it achieves changes on the relevant policy track. In addition, it is very difficult for the state to expand business without risking bankruptcy (in which case the IMF comes in and changes all policies, which can have a devastating effect). In my experience, the state is constantly at risk of bankruptcy.

 As for the working class, they don't have their own businesses (apart from cooperative farms, which can only be brought into play with an action card - more on that below). Therefore, they have to work for the rest of the factions to make a living. However, they will prefer the job that offers the most favorable conditions. In addition, the working class has the means to force the rest to raise wages (through strikes) and to achieve full employment (through demonstrations).

 All this usually leads to a situation where the middle and working class compete for well-paid jobs for the state and at the same time are forced to cooperate to prevent the capitalists from getting far ahead with their most efficient production. The state is trying to produce more resources, which are necessary to solve crises and increase its reputation (legitimacy), but if you make ineffective moves, you can go bankrupt. The middle class and capitalists also have reasons to cooperate, for example, to achieve lower taxes, and the middle and working classes to jointly reduce immigration (unlike capitalists who seek to achieve a regular influx of easily exploited workers). In this aspect, Hegemony is most similar to COIN: alliances are also formed and destroyed during the game - depending on the situation on the field and the balance of power between the players.

 The game also has fierce competition for resources. Capitalists can (and often do) sell goods on the foreign market, removing them from the game. This can be very profitable, but requires action. Capitalists can also put them up for sale to other factions; then the buyer will spend the purchase action.

 The working class needs to consume welfare-enhancing goods, but as the population grows (and it's growing fast), it becomes more and more expensive. In addition, at the end of each round, the level of well-being drops slightly, so more and more funds will have to be invested to maintain well-being.

 The middle class can both sell goods and consume, but with less efficiency (they produce fewer goods, and their level of well-being falls twice as fast).

 The state does not consume goods, but it is interested in a stable flow of goods from other factions for its own well-being. To do this, you can either suggest that others buy cheap or free medical services and/or education, or spend goods on crisis solutions, which can bring many programs. Each round of the game, two event cards appear; if the crises pointed to them are not allowed, it will undermine the legitimacy of the state, which promises less influence and less software.

 The game also has fierce competition for policy tracks. If the indicator on the track is "correct" (corresponds to the interests of the faction), it will bring it VP at the end of the game. Also, POs give a proposal and successful voting.

 Voting is done by drawing cubes from a bag, and the player can spend to get more cubes in the bag (hello, 1960: Making of a President). However, if all 4 players participate in the vote, things get a little more complicated: before the dice are drawn, each player must announce whether they are going to vote "for" or "against". Players can also make bets blindly by spending an influence resource; the results are summarized by the results drawn from the bag. Moreover, the state can influence the voting results only by spending influence — it does not have voting cubes. The winning side's cubes are reset, as are any spent influence, and the loser's cubes are returned to the bag, balancing out the effect of randomness somewhat.

 As you can see, there are a lot of different mechanics in the game. Fortunately, each individual mechanic is fairly simple and straightforward, but you'll have to remember a lot of nuances, so the first batch will be difficult. For example, remember that certain action cards benefit the state if played by other players. Do not forget to return the voting cubes to the bag. Do not forget about taxes - and they can be calculated in four different ways!

 There are many other nuances that I will not describe in detail; say that workers have skills relevant to the businesses in which they can work, how unions are organized, how capital, welfare and legitimacy are accumulated. In general, a lot of things. But the main thing is to understand that the game:

• complex;
• asymmetric;
• full of negotiations and politics;
• offers tools to fight the leader, but at the same time does not descend into the bash the leader and take-that syndrome;
• the model of the state is surprisingly well brought to the table, although it is far from ideal.

 What did I like and dislike about the game?

 What I liked the most is that this is the best embodiment of the political structure of the state that I have seen in games. Far from perfect, not at all. But it crams so many different concepts into one board and at the same time remains playable, which is an amazing achievement.

 I also like how the factions are wildly asymmetric and interdependent at the same time. This is a game about politics and you have to maneuver. There are also many subtle (and not so subtle) ways to pressure other players.

 I also like the need to make many difficult decisions every turn. As a general rule, every time it's my turn, I want to play at least 2-3 action cards. But at the same time, I need to do at least two basic actions, otherwise I will be overtaken by the competition... Good timing and prioritization are very important, and there are several ways to achieve your goals; these are all signs of a great game to me.

 I can't name any serious flaws, but I have a couple of complaints about Hegemony. First, although it can be played with more than 4 players, an incomplete lineup is much less interesting. In addition, it is more difficult to stop the leader who broke forward with an incomplete team. So I would say that Hegemony is fully played by only four.

 Also, as mentioned, the game is very complex. I was wrong more than once in the first three games and I suspect that I still make small mistakes. Mastering Hegemony takes time and effort. However, they pay off, and the rules are later remembered, since they are completely thematic.

 I'm also a bit concerned about balance in the long run. Since the game is very complex, I'm not sure if it will be polished before release. If not, one or more factions may have unfair advantages/disadvantages. I've already seen comments that it's very difficult to win as a middle class, and in my opinion it's true. However, it is too early to judge. Look at the same "Twilight Struggle": a great game, although the balance was polished already after the release. It seems to me that Hegemony's balance will eventually have to be polished through software bidding or some other means.

 And a small thematic remark. Although the game involves a lot of voting on politicians through direct democracy, the choice of the ruling party is completely random, determined by the card drawn at the beginning of the round. While this fits the balance perfectly (making life more difficult for the state player), thematically it feels weird and underdeveloped. I would like the rest of the factions to have some opportunity to vote for the ruling party from among several options, and for the state to receive bonuses for policy compliance with the party's pre-election promises and support for stability. Currently, the state's participation in politics plays an insignificant role compared to maintaining a stable situation and resolving crises. However, given how well the crisis mechanics are worked out, it wouldn't be a big deal if the election mechanics stayed the same (plus I may be biased because I live in the UK and other countries' political systems may be different). In addition, Hegemony perfectly simulates the political pressure of various factions on a weak government that tries to satisfy them all.

 Do I recommend this game? Yes, as long as you don't mind complex rules, lots of mechanics, and are interested in heavy political-economic games, and have a big table. In my opinion, Hegemony perfectly fulfills the tasks set before it, which makes it unique in its kind. It's also very impressive how well it translates socio-economic concepts like immigration, taxation, and the role of the public and private sectors into game form. And in general, the product is of very high quality for a new company.

USEFUL LINKS

Hegemony: Lead You Class to Victory on the BGG portal

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/321608/hegemony-lead-your-class-victory

Hegemony: Lead You Class to Victory on the Game Theory portal

https://www.tg.in.ua/boardgames/61704/hegemony-lead-your-class-to-victory

VIDEO REVIEWS