Three systems, added one generation at a time · Operator: Chenyjunny
한국어 (Korean) · All guides & articles
Every grand strategy game you can play today, on a board or in a browser, is built from three ideas that had to be invented separately before anyone combined them: territory you can fight over, diplomacy you can negotiate outside of combat, and an economy that turns territory into military strength over time. None of these three arrived at once. Each showed up in its own board game, roughly a generation apart, and the genre as a whole is really the story of designers gradually stacking them together.
▶ Play Era of ConquestThe lineage arguably starts even earlier than any commercially sold game. In early 19th-century Prussia, a military tabletop system known as Kriegsspiel — literally 'war game' — was developed as a training tool for army officers, using a map, blocks representing units, and an umpire to adjudicate the results of proposed moves according to distance, terrain and force ratios. It was adopted into the Prussian military's own officer education, on the belief that rehearsing decisions on a simplified map, with real consequences for a piece standing in for a battalion, taught something a lecture could not. It had no commercial life outside the military and no interest in being fun for its own sake, but it established the founding idea every later conquest game would borrow without necessarily knowing the source: that a map, some rules for movement and combat, and the discipline of thinking one turn ahead could stand in, meaningfully, for the real thing.
The starting point is territory alone. The board game that introduced the idea of a stylized world map divided into named territories, conquered by moving armies and resolving battles with dice, was created by the French filmmaker Albert Lamorisse and first published in France in the late 1950s before Parker Brothers brought an English-language version to a wider audience as Risk. Its rules were, by later standards, extremely simple: armies, adjacency, dice, and the single objective of eliminating everyone else from the map. What Risk proved was that map conquest alone — no economy, no negotiation mechanics beyond whatever players agreed to informally — was compelling enough to become one of the best-known board games of the century. It also established the genre's most basic structural lesson: territory does not just win the game, it also determines who can even reach whom, which is why adjacency and geography still do most of the design work in every conquest game that followed it.
A different game, released not long after, took almost the opposite approach. Designed by Allan B. Calhamer and published in 1959, Diplomacy removed dice and chance entirely: armies of equal strength simply bounce off each other unless a player has arranged support from another player's army, and all such arrangements are made through open negotiation between turns, with no requirement that any promise made during that negotiation be kept. Diplomacy demonstrated something Risk hadn't needed to: that treaties, alliances and betrayal could be the entire engine of a strategy game, with combat reduced to simple, transparent math and the actual contest moved almost entirely into the negotiating table. It is still cited today as one of the sharpest studies of alliance behaviour in board game form, precisely because nothing about its rules forces cooperation — every alliance in a game of Diplomacy exists only because both sides currently find it useful, exactly the condition that governs real alliances too.
The third piece arrived with Axis & Allies, published by Milton Bradley in 1981, which added something neither earlier game had: territories that produced income used to buy new units, turning conquest into a compounding economic engine rather than a fixed pool of starting armies. Taking a well-developed territory now mattered differently from taking an empty one, and a player's growing industrial base became as much a measure of their position as the number of territories on the board. This is the piece that let conquest games start to model something closer to an actual war economy rather than a chess-like exchange of pieces, and it is the direct ancestor of the production and development mechanics found in nearly every digital grand strategy game since.
Computers didn't invent a fourth system so much as they let designers run all three at once, continuously, instead of in the simplified turns a board and a rulebook could manage by hand. Sid Meier's Civilization series, beginning in 1991, folded territory, diplomacy and economy together with technology progression across an entire game rather than a single match. Paradox Interactive's line of historical grand strategy titles, starting with Europa Universalis in 2000, pushed the same three systems toward genuine historical simulation, with alliance networks, trade, and territorial control all updating in relation to each other on a scale no board game could physically track. The throughline from Lamorisse's cardboard map to a modern PC grand strategy title is continuous rather than a series of unrelated inventions — each generation kept what worked and added the one system the previous generation hadn't gotten to yet.
Era of Conquest is a small, direct descendant of that same three-part lineage, built for a browser tab rather than a table or an installed application. It keeps Risk's core idea of a real map with real adjacency deciding who can reach whom, adds Diplomacy's negotiation layer as a genuine system with its own thresholds and consequences rather than an informal side conversation, and runs Axis & Allies' economic engine as a continuous production and income system that rewards developing what you hold as much as taking more of it. None of the three ideas is new — what changes from decade to decade, and from board to browser, is how tightly the three can be woven together and how much of the bookkeeping a computer can quietly run for you, so the actual decisions — where to strike, whom to trust, what to build — are the only part left in your hands.
There is a reason this particular set of three systems, rather than some other combination, is the one that kept getting reinvented. Territory alone is a puzzle; add diplomacy and it becomes a study of trust; add an economy and it becomes a study of patience and compounding advantage. Each addition didn't replace what came before, it gave the earlier system more to be about — a battle in Risk decides who owns a territory, the same battle in a game with an economy layered on top decides who owns a territory that will keep paying out for the rest of the match, which is a meaningfully different decision to make and a meaningfully different reason to go to war in the first place.
More articles: Your first turn-based strategy game · Napoleon and concentration of force · How small states survive among empires
Guides: All guides & articles · About & how to play · Scenarios