Cry Havoc and the Asymmetric Alien War That Deserved More Attention

Cry Havoc At A Glance

I have played Cry Havoc eighteen times across various player counts, but it was the solo campaigns that truly revealed its brilliance. My success rates vary wildly depending on which faction I’m piloting against the automa opponents. The Trogs, humanity’s desperate remnant, win about sixty percent of my attempts. The Machine collective succeeds roughly forty percent of the time. The Pilgrims, those crystalline energy beings, prove most challenging at around thirty percent success rate. I maintain detailed notes on resource conversion efficiency, tracking which territories generate optimal returns for each faction’s unique scoring mechanisms.

What fascinates me most is how completely different each faction feels mechanically. This isn’t cosmetic asymmetry where factions share similar actions with different artwork. The four radically asymmetric factions fighting on the planet of Vallandra (Portal Games) operate under fundamentally different rules for expansion, combat, and victory. Playing the Trogs feels like commanding a desperate guerrilla resistance. Switching to the Machines creates an entirely different strategic puzzle focused on technological expansion and resource processing.

The game emerged during the mid-2010s asymmetric strategy boom, yet somehow got overshadowed by flashier releases. Perhaps its stark, functional presentation didn’t generate the buzz of more visually striking games. Perhaps the learning curve scared off casual groups. Whatever the reason, Cry Havoc represents one of the most mechanically elegant approaches to faction asymmetry I’ve encountered in area control gaming.

## What Cry Havoc Really Is

Cry Havoc operates on a structure where the game is played across a set number of rounds with events each round (Rulebook PDF). Each round, players secretly select action cards that determine turn order and available actions. You might choose military expansion, technological development, resource harvesting, or direct combat, depending on your faction’s strengths and current board position.

The core gameplay loop involves claiming territories, exploiting their resources, and engaging in battles when multiple factions occupy the same region. Each region contains resources that different factions exploit in distinct ways (UltraBoardGames). Trogs need population centres to recruit more units. Machines require mineral deposits for technological advancement. Pilgrims convert energy sources into crystals. The Humans scavenge whatever they can find to survive another day.

What makes this fascinating mechanically is how territory control serves different strategic purposes for each faction. When I claim a region as the Machines, I’m building towards technological superiority and resource processing efficiency. When playing Trogs, that same region represents potential recruitment grounds and defensive positioning. The map remains constant, but each faction sees completely different opportunities and threats based on their unique mechanical frameworks.

The action selection system creates interesting timing decisions. High-numbered cards go first but provide fewer action points. Low numbers offer more actions but force you to react to opponents’ moves. This tension between initiative and flexibility runs throughout every decision, creating a chess-like quality where positioning and timing matter as much as tactical execution.

## Portal’s Revolutionary Combat Board

The combat system deserves particular attention because it transforms what could have been routine dice-rolling into genuine strategic decisions. Portal highlights its unique combat system where you allocate strength in a battle board (Portal Games). Instead of rolling dice and hoping for favourable results, battles use an allocation system rather than dice to resolve outcomes (Rulebook PDF).

The battle board contains four tracks: Kill, Retreat, Hold, and Control. Each participant secretly allocates their combat strength across these tracks, then reveals simultaneously. Success on Kill eliminates enemy units. Retreat forces opponents to withdraw from the region. Hold allows you to maintain presence despite being outnumbered. Control determines who gains territorial advantages.

This creates layered psychological gameplay where predicting opponent intentions becomes crucial. If I suspect my opponent will heavily invest in Kill, I might allocate everything to Retreat to preserve my forces whilst denying them total victory. However, if they anticipated this and focused on Control instead, they secure the region whilst I flee with intact units. The combat board becomes a tense mind game rather than a maths exercise (Shut Up and Sit Down).

What makes this system particularly clever is how different factions approach these decisions. Machines might prioritise Control because they score heavily from territorial dominance. Trogs often focus on Hold because maintaining presence generates ongoing recruitment opportunities. Each faction’s unique scoring mechanisms influence how they evaluate combat outcomes, creating varied tactical approaches to identical situations.

## Asymmetry That Actually Matters

The mechanical differentiation between factions goes far beyond special abilities or unique units. The factions feel genuinely different rather than cosmetically asymmetric (Shut Up and Sit Down). Each operates under distinct rules for expansion, resource utilisation, and victory conditions that fundamentally alter how you approach every decision.

The Trogs represent humanity’s survivors, focusing on population growth and territorial expansion. They recruit units by controlling populated regions and score heavily from geographical dominance. Playing Trogs feels like building a traditional civilisation, claiming territory and growing your military presence through careful resource management.

Machines follow completely different mechanical rules. They advance through technological trees, upgrading their capabilities rather than expanding numerically. Machine victories often come through efficiency and specialisation rather than territorial control. Their resource conversion systems operate differently from other factions, requiring forward planning and systematic development.

Pilgrims exist as energy beings who manipulate crystalline structures across the battlefield. Their mechanics emphasise mobility and resource conversion, creating gameplay that feels alien compared to more conventional factions. They can appear anywhere crystals exist, making traditional territorial control less relevant to their strategy.

The Humans serve as desperate scavengers, mechanically designed around adaptability and survival. They lack the specialised strengths of other factions but compensate through flexibility and opportunistic play. Human victories typically involve exploiting weaknesses in opponent strategies rather than executing a predetermined plan.

## Victory Through Faction-Specific Excellence

Victory is determined by points from territory control objectives and faction-specific scoring (UltraBoardGames). This dual scoring approach means you cannot simply copy successful strategies from other factions. Each must pursue victory through their unique mechanical advantages whilst competing for shared territorial objectives.

Territory control provides universal scoring opportunities, but faction-specific objectives often determine final outcomes. Machines might score massively from technological advancement. Trogs gain points from population centres and military dominance. Pilgrims score through crystal network development. This creates strategic tension between pursuing faction strengths and competing for shared resources.

The scoring system prevents any single approach from dominating. Pure territorial expansion might secure early leads but fail to generate faction-specific points needed for victory. Conversely, focusing entirely on faction abilities whilst ignoring territorial control surrenders too many points to opponents. Successful play requires balancing these competing priorities whilst adapting to opponent strategies.

What I find most engaging about this system is how victories feel earned through mastering faction-specific mechanics rather than exploiting universal optimal strategies. When I win with the Machines, it’s because I successfully navigated their technological advancement trees whilst maintaining sufficient territorial presence. Trog victories come from effective population management and military positioning. Each faction requires different skills and strategic thinking.

## Strategic Depth Through Resource Scarcity

Resource management creates the strategic backbone that makes faction asymmetry meaningful. Territories provide different resource types, but factions need different combinations to achieve their objectives. This creates natural conflict as players compete for limited resources essential to their strategies.

The resource system prevents factions from operating in isolation. Even the most technologically advanced Machine player needs access to specific territories for continued development. Trogs require population centres that might be contested by Human survivors. Pilgrims need energy sources that other factions might also value for different purposes.

This interdependence forces interaction and conflict even when factions pursue different victory paths. You cannot simply execute your preferred strategy without considering opponent needs and potential interference. Territory becomes valuable not just for its direct benefits but for denying crucial resources to opponents.

The mechanisms include area control and variable player powers (BoardGameGeek), but the implementation goes deeper than typical area control games. Control matters because it enables faction-specific resource exploitation, not just generic point generation. This creates more meaningful territorial disputes where the value of regions depends heavily on which factions are competing for them.

## Is Cry Havoc Still Relevant Today?

Eight years after release, Cry Havoc remains mechanically sound despite some presentational limitations. The component quality holds up well, though the artwork feels somewhat sterile compared to more recent releases. Rules clarity is generally excellent, though teaching four distinct faction rule sets requires patience and systematic explanation.

The game’s greatest strength, its radical asymmetry, also creates its biggest accessibility challenge. New players struggle with the cognitive load of learning multiple faction systems simultaneously. Teaching time extends significantly when everyone needs to understand not just core rules but how each faction breaks those rules differently.

Setup time remains reasonable for the complexity level, typically fifteen to twenty minutes including faction selection and board preparation. Play time consistently falls within the 60 to 120 minutes (BoardGameGeek) range, though inexperienced groups might exceed this with analysis paralysis during combat allocation.

Modern asymmetric designs have generally moved towards more intuitive faction differences, making Cry Havoc feel somewhat demanding by current standards. However, this mechanical complexity serves the game well, creating genuinely different play experiences that reward mastery of each faction’s unique systems.

The combat board innovation remains brilliant and underutilised in subsequent designs. Most combat systems still rely on dice rolling or simple numerical comparison. Cry Havoc’s allocation mechanic creates psychological depth that enhances strategic decision-making beyond mere resource management.

## Why You Should Experience This Asymmetric Masterpiece

If you enjoy area control games but want something that transcends the “place units, roll dice, claim territory” formula, Cry Havoc provides tactical depth through its allocation-based combat system and genuine faction differentiation.

If you appreciate asymmetric design where factions feel fundamentally different rather than cosmetically varied, this game delivers four completely distinct strategic experiences within a coherent mechanical framework.

If you want combat that rewards psychological insight and tactical planning over luck-based outcomes, the battle board creates engaging mind games where predicting opponent decisions becomes as important as managing your own resources.

If you value games that reward mastery and systematic learning, each faction offers deep strategic possibilities that emerge through repeated play and careful analysis of their unique mechanical interactions.

The 2 to 4 player count (BoardGameGeek) works well across all configurations, though four-player games create the most dynamic territorial competition and faction interaction.

## Verdict

Cry Havoc deserves recognition as one of the most successful implementations of radical faction asymmetry in area control gaming. After eighteen plays, I continue discovering new tactical approaches and strategic possibilities within each faction’s mechanical framework. The combat board alone represents a design innovation that more games should adopt.

My only significant criticism involves the learning curve, which demands patience from groups willing to master four distinct rule sets. However, this complexity enables the game’s greatest strength: creating genuinely different play experiences that feel fresh across multiple sessions.

This game demonstrates that mechanical asymmetry can create strategic depth without sacrificing accessibility for committed players. The psychological elements of combat allocation combined with resource scarcity and territorial competition create a compelling strategic experience that rewards both tactical thinking and long-term planning.

See our breakdown of the best asymmetric strategy games

Nicholas

Nicholas teaches secondary school history by day and campaigns through fantasy worlds by night. He writes about legacy and campaign games—the epic, months-long sagas that build friendships, stories, and the occasional scheduling nightmare.