DON'T BUY Rising Dragon: Platoon Level Combat in 2034 Game Until You Watch This! (board game review)
Transcript
We just spent hours watching every bit of footage we could find on Rising Dragon. And honestly, this is wild. Should you back this Taiwan invasion war game or skip it? That's what we're figuring out today.
Wild is the right word because this one's complicated. Let me set the stage real quick.
So, we didn't get a review copy this time, but we watched every available footage and consumed every piece of information we could find about the game. Rising Dragon is a Kickstarter campaign for a near future tactical war game, China invading Taiwan in 2034. It's designed by Greg Porter, published by Flying Pig Games. And here's the key thing, it uses the exact same system as Armageddon War. Same mechanics, same scale, same designer. The campaign launched November 11th, runs until December 2nd, only 21 days total, already funded at over 400% of $16,000. Happened in minutes. Estimated delivery March 2026.
Right. And this is strictly two players, no solo in the base game. Game time is 1 to three hours per scenario. 16 scenarios in the box bumped to 18 with stretch goals. Platoon level scale means you're commanding individual tanks and infantry squads. 150 meter hex's 15-minute turns. Its hex encounter wargaming, but with this unique continuous activation system instead of traditional turns. That's where things get interesting.
Okay, so the mechanics are legitimately clever based on everything we watched. The campaign page calls it chit pull driven with custom dice combat. What that means is you're not doing I go, you go turns. Formation chits go in a cup. You pull one, that formation activates. But when only one chit remains, the two leftmost chits from the activation track go back in the cup. So it's rolling and continuous. There are literally no turn boundaries, no cleanup phases, no reset points.
And what really struck me in the gameplay footage is how that creates constant tension. You might activate twice in a row or your opponent might activate three times before you get another turn. Units recover individually when their formation activates. So if your tanks take heavy damage, they stay degraded for multiple enemy activations until you finally draw their chit. That footage where three tanks got pounded and became useless for several activations. That's the system working as designed.
The dice system is the other standout. Custom dice. Black for normal fire, red for intense fire, green for weak fire. You start with black dice equal to firepower minus defense. Then modifiers change quantity or quality. Close range upgrades black to red. Cover downgrades to green. Technology differences matter. Modern equipment versus outdated stuff upgrades your dice. The campaign page gives exact probabilities. Green averages 0.33 strikes per die. Black is 0.83. Red is 1.33.
And there are no combat tables. You roll dice and they show strikes, hits, or shields for counter fire if the defender shoots back. The demonstrations made this crystal clear. One example had a missile attacking a tank with reactive armor. calculation was just firepower minus defense plus modifiers then roll. Defender can counter fire, but that gives the attacker an extra die and upgrades dice quality. So, you're choosing shoot back and risk more damage or hunker down.
Victory conditions vary by scenario. Some are civilian evacuation where you move counters off the map edge. Some are objective control. Some penalize civilian casualties. The footage showed rebels moving three civilian counters off the board, but each civilian activation only moves one counter, one hex. The enemy is racing to intercept and close combat automatically captures civilians. That countdown tension of will the civilian chit get drawn enough times before the enemy closes was brutal to watch. All right, let's talk what actually works because there's genuinely a lot. That continuous activation system is brilliant in practice. Traditional war games have predictable rhythm. You know when your turn comes, plan everything, execute, wait. But with rolling chitpole, you're constantly reacting. The footage showed one side activating three formations in a row and the entire tactical situation flipped.
Your defensive line gets shredded before you can respond, or you pound the same enemy formation twice consecutively.
What I loved was how that creates this one long engagement feel. There's never a reset point where everything refreshes. Damaged units stay damaged until their formation activates. The reviewers emphasize this constantly. It feels like continuous battle, not segmented turns. That's such a clever way to simulate combat chaos. You don't know when reinforcements arrive or if your battered tanks get a breather. The dice system deserves credit, too. Instead of referencing tables, you just evaluate modifiers and roll. Color coding is intuitive. Red dice feel more dangerous than green, but tactical depth comes from modifier interactions. The demonstrations showed combined arms emerging naturally because attacking armor with anti-tank weapons is efficient. Same color firepower versus same color defense means one strike equals one hit. Attack armor with anti-infantry weapons, and you need multiple strikes per hit. So, you're incentivized to match unit types to targets.
Counter fire creates amazing tactical dilemmas. Footage showed one exchange where the defender counterfired and both sides got shredded. Three strikes on defender, two counter strikes on attacker. Both formations crippled in one exchange. But if the defender took cover, they'd avoid counter strikes but do no damage. You're constantly weighing. Is shooting back worth the extra incoming damage or do I preserve units by hunkering down?
Production values are clearly high. injection molded dice, mounted maps, detailed rule book. The unboxing footage showed a conversational rule book explaining not just what rules are, but why the designer made those choices. That transparency makes learning easier. Plus, the campaign page shows dice probability tables. Mathematical precision means you can calculate expected outcomes instead of hoping. The system has been extensively play tested through Armageddon War. This isn't experimental mechanics. It's a proven system applied to a new setting. Reviews showed people playing dozens of scenarios consistently praising the mechanics. Continuous activation was huge credit to the system. Dice combat was fun and intuitive. We're not betting on untested design. We're betting on whether this adapts well to Taiwan invasion.
Now, before we get carried away, let's talk problems. Big one. There is zero Rising Dragon specific gameplay footage. None. Game hasn't been released. No prototype reviews, no designer playthroughs, no backer previews. Everything we watched was Armageddon War system. We have not seen one second of actual Rising Dragon gameplay.
That's unusual for modern Kickstarter war games. Most show designer playthroughs or prototypes. But the campaign page promises naval units, amphibious landing mechanics, drone support weapons, urban combat scenarios, and provides literally zero mechanical explanations. How do destroyers work at platoon scale? Do they occupy hex's? Can land units fire at ships? Campaign page doesn't say. Designer interview confirms features exist, but offers no details. That's where risk sets. Armageddon war system is proven. We watched it function smoothly. But Armageddon War is Middle East land combat. Tanks, infantry, helicopters, all on land. Rising Dragon adds naval destroyers, amphibious zebra hovercraft, urban combat with civilian infrastructure protection. Those are novel additions, and we have no idea how they integrate. Are there new rules subsystems, or do naval units just have different stats? Amphibious landing mechanics are completely mysterious. How does a massive Zubra hovercraft function at 150 m hex scale?
Does it occupy water hex's and land hex's? Do troops disembark instantly or over activations? Can enemies fire during approach? These are basic questions gameplay footage would answer immediately, but we're guessing from campaign page promises. Urban combat sounds cool thematically. Scenarios where one side protects infrastructure while the other protects civilians. But what does that mean mechanically? Special urban terrain rules? Do buildings collapse? Civilian casualty penalty system? campaign page mentions hypersonic missiles, robotic troops, AI directed anti-tank swarms, but never explains how these function. Are they counters with different stats, or do they introduce new mechanics?
Delivery timeline is tight, too. March 2026 is 3 and 1/2 months from campaign close. Plausible for reprints, but this adds new content, new maps, counters, scenarios with untested mechanics. Campaign page provides zero information about prototype status. Whether maps are finalized, scenarios balanced, manufacturing lined up, risk section just says printing is challenging where experienced. That's generic boilerplate, not transparency. Plus, there's the inherent backing on faith problem. Campaign page confirms Rising Dragon uses the same system as Armageddon War, but we're trusting Greg Porter and Flying Pig Games adapted it to naval and amphibious operations. Maybe they did. Flying Pig has 23 Kickstarter projects and solid track record, but we can't verify because there's no footage. We're betting on designer competence rather than demonstrated product quality. Scenario count raises questions. 16 base scenarios, 18 with stretch goals, simulating entire Taiwan invasion.
Campaign page notes, most scenarios use one board or portions, suggesting small tactical engagements, not sprawling campaigns. So, are we getting 18 cherrypicked vignettes or cohesive campaign? Campaign page doesn't clarify. Scenario descriptions are thematic, but we don't know if they play distinctly.
So, here's where this lands after watching everything. I'm torn because there are two confidence levels. The Armageddon War system we observed is excellent. Innovative, tactically deep, well produced. Based on gameplay demonstrations alone, I'd rate that system 8 out of 10. Continuous activation creates real tension. Dice combat is intuitive but deep. Component quality is stellar, but Rising Dragons Taiwan specific content is completely undemonstrated. Naval mechanics, amphibious landings, urban combat promises without proof. That drops my confidence significantly. Rating Rising Dragon as a complete package. I'm looking at 7.2 out of 10. Proven system foundation pull score up. Unverified new content and tight timeline pull it down.
Conditional recommendation, not enthusiastic endorsement.
Yeah, 7 to 7.2 range feels right. You're backing on trust. Trust in porters design skill, flying pigs production capability, trust the system adapts well. That trust might be warranted given their track record, but we can't verify Taiwan implementation because it doesn't exist in observable form yet.
Verdict for me is conditional buy with caveats. If you're experienced hexer war gamer who owns and loves Armageddon War, probably worth backing. You know the system, enjoy it. Getting more scenarios in a new setting. If you specifically want Taiwan invasion wargaming at platoon scale and you're comfortable backing on designer reputation, back it. But acknowledge risk on naval and amphibious mechanics integration.
But doesn't work for casual gamers or newcomers. Rules complexity based on demonstrations is moderate to high. Tracking dice modifiers, action counters, line of sight, combined fire bonuses, technology differences. That's a lot to internalize. If you need accessible entry and gentle learning curves, Rising Dragon isn't that game.
Alternatives exist. Armageddon War itself is available now. Same designer, publisher, mechanics, fully released with reviews and footage. Buy it, play immediately, see if you like the system, then decide if Rising Dragon's Taiwan setting is worth backing. That's the safe route.
So, final word. Rising Dragon has excellent system foundation based on everything we watched, but Taiwan specific content is undemonstrated. Naval mechanics, amphibious landings, urban scenarios, promises not proven implementations. If you trust Porter and Flying Pig to pull it off, worth your attention. If you need gameplay before backing, wait for post- delivery reviews.
We'll definitely watch what happens. If it delivers and naval mechanics work, could be a standout tactical war game. But right now, it's calculated risk based on system trust and publisher reputation. Thanks for hanging with us while we geeked out about Chitpole activation. We're Board Game Critique and we'll see you in the next