ReviewsTabletop GamingTabletop Gaming ReviewsThe War Room

Returning Across the 38th Parallel – ‘Next War: Korea’ Reviewed

Game Name: Next War: Korea

Publisher: GMT

Designers: Mitchell Land and Gene Billingsley

Year: 2012

Players: Two (although suitable for solitaire play)

Ages: 12+

Playing Time: One to five hours

Retail Price: $85.00

Category: Hypothetical Modern Wargame





  • Standard & Advanced Rulebook
  • Game Specific Rulebook
  • 1026 9/16″ counters
  • Two 22×34 inch Mapsheets
  • 5 8.5×11 inch Play Aids
  • 2 11×17 inch Play Aids
  • One 10-sided die

From GMT:

Sixty years of tense, uneasy peace are shattered as the Korean Peninsula erupts in renewed warfare. One historically, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous people polarized and separated by superpower politics and economics hurl men, weapons, and material into the maelstrom of modern combat in an attempt to settle their arbitrary division once and for all.

From Pyongyang in North Korea to Pusan in the South, the war rages. In a scene reminiscent of the first attack by the In Min Gun in 1950, the North Korean People’s Army surges across the Demilitarized Zone and penetrates deep into South Korea. Special Operations Forces from both sides conduct raids, interdiction, and reconnaissance missions behind enemy lines while airborne, air assault, and amphibious forces strike far behind those lines attempting to outflank the main army forces of both sides. In the air, both sides wage a heated campaign in an effort establish superiority over the skies of Korea. With rough terrain and the full ferocity of modern armor, airmobile, airborne, and marine warfighting capabilities, there is no safe haven in the lethal cauldron of battle which has engulfed the Korean Peninsula.

While North and South battle for a quick, decisive victory, the world awaits the response of the two military superpowers in the region: the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China. Will the United States, stung by high casualties among the soldiers of its 2nd Infantry Division near the DMZ during the surprise artillery barrages and initial assaults on the first day of the war, be able to reinforce the South quickly enough, and, if so, how and in what strength? Will the Communist Chinese again react to a massive US response and intervene, thus widening the conflict? As the situation evolves, choices are made, forces are committed, and the security of Japan and the future of the two Koreas hangs in the balance.


Much has been discussed in the geopolitical world that the most obvious location for the next major conflict is more than likely Korea. I can’t say I particularly agree with these assessments seeing I think it’s mighty tough to field a truly combat ready fighting force when it’s made up of a great many people who seemingly subsist on tree bark, but if such a war could break out Next War: Korea does an excellent job of prophesying just what may happen.

The reality upon delving into Next War: Korea (or NWK) is you’re getting three games and each is substantially different than the others. First you have the standard game which is more or less a traditional strategic level wargame while the advanced game builds upon the standard while adding many new options and even changes to the mechanics and gameplay and flow of the standard. The third game is an air war only simulation.

Component quality is what we’ve come to expect from GMT with a variety of counters, play aids, two rule books and baggies to sort everything. One glaring item that really bears mention, and truth be told I was shocked to see, is paper maps – albeit very nicely finished paper maps – in a GMT title carrying an $85 price tag. I can see this happening with a $50 dollar game but at NWK’s price point, and with such an great design, I can’t see how we didn’t get a mounted board.

The scale of NWK is from battalion to army size for the ground units with each hex covering approximately seven and a half miles. Turns represent somewhere in the vicinity of three and a half days so two turns equal a week of game time. Counters are clear and uncluttered while most carry the standard NATO symbols for identification. Ground units mainly indicate attack, defense, and movement as well as other factors and air units show combat support, range, and other factors that may come into play. Overall the counters look exactly like what any gamer, regardless if they’re a wargamer or not, has seen for thirty years or so. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, just that we’re looking at fairly traditional counter designs.

The standard game is comprised of seven scenarios and most utilize a single map with a tendency to keep the unit count fairly low. Most of these can be completed in a couple hours or less and comprise a nice solid, if somewhat unspectacular, experience. Or, in other words, a diehard grognard will have fun with the standard game but once they’ve got their head around the basics will want to move on the advanced game as soon as possible. Less experienced players should find the standard game enough of a challenge in and of itself.

The standard game turn is broken down into the following phases:



Initiative Movement and Combat

Basic Movement and Combat


Reinforcements and Replacements

Victory Determination

The standard game tackles air and sea power in a very abstracted way while the advanced game ups the ante and actual counters are introduced to represent the various air squadrons available. Combat is based upon traditional attack strength versus defense strength ratio and step reduction of flipping counters to their reduced side takes place when incurring losses. Air units can aid in combat rolls while naval bombardment can help the attacker as well.

A sprinkling of other rules come into play during the standard game such as snipers, air superiority, control of the sea, and so on but nothing which pushes the game above an average (or possibly slightly above average) complexity in my opinion.

While the standard game is fun and should appeal to plenty of gamers, especially those who are tight on time, the advanced game is really where the game shines best. The advanced game has four scenarios and plays much differently than the standard game. Many new rules are introduced as well as new turn phases. Supply becomes a much larger issue, special forces become more special, headquarters exert influence on subordinate units, and – as noted previously – the air war plays a much larger and more detailed role with a variety of aircraft and missile types modeled. In the advanced game the conflict takes on a much more epic feel and quite a few optional rules are available although it’s important to point out the complexity level gets ratcheted quite a bit.

All in all the advanced game is a completely different beast entirely from the standard game. Plenty of optional rues are available in the advanced game as well such as U.S. readiness, DPNK Nukes, Japanese ground forces, and so on. These optional rules can add quite a few wrinkles both large and small.

The air war game plays closely along the lines of the advanced game only with the exclusion of worrying about ground forces. I honestly can’t say I did much more than kick the tires as, although it’s a welcome addition, I don’t see the air war aspect being the main selling point of NWK.

I have to say I like Next War: Korea but there are some minor problems.

To begin, I found the game specific rulebook for NWK (keep in mind there are two rulebooks: one for the system and one for this title) to be a bit confusing and not the most intuitive for the reader. Many of the rules for the standard and advanced game are mixed together as opposed to being broken into two distinct sections and it leads one to lose focus as to what goes where when learning to play the game. Even though it would lead to a higher page count I believe the standard and advanced games should each had a section devoted to them as opposed to the mash up as the book currently stands.

Also some of the rules seemingly contradict themselves which can lead to more confusion. Luckily, GMT is a firm believer in “living rules” and I know a new edition of the rules, as well as player charts, are available online so not a huge issue here but it bears mentioning. Speaking of player charts there are quite a few but only one copy of each so you’ll have to share. Also of note, although you’re playing to achieve a victory point level, and you check each turn to see if either player has reached the required total, there isn’t a tracker for VPs.

Lastly, there’s the issue of the paper maps. Sure, I know the Stones sang “you can’t always get what you want” but I still feel, for a title that will run someone over four Jacksons, there really should have been mounted maps. I know for people who are going to dig the system (and play the heck out of it) those paper maps are going to see a lot of wear and tear.

In my opinion the game looks to simulate the potential conflict realistically as neither the North Korean nor US/RSK player is going to have a cake walk: North Korea doesn’t have the technology to quickly and effectively eliminate opposition while the US/RSK doesn’t possess the initial strength in numbers to stem the attacking tide or survive a long grind. All in all Next War: Korea is an interesting system and will strongly appeal to gamers who are interested in modern combat, especially what conceivably could go down if the North Koreans ever decided to move beyond their tradition of saber rattling.

Show More

Jeff McAleer

Founder, editor-in-chief, and host of The Daily Dope and other TGG media. Jeff tackles any and all topics but his main gaming focus is war and strategy, RPGs, and miniatures. He's also a fan of independent and small press comics. Plus, Jeff is certainly never at a loss for an opinion...

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button