A thesis that turned into a publishing house

Varnavas Timotheou is Cypriot, holds a degree in International Politics from Manchester, specialized in International Political Economy at King's College London, and later earned an MBA. On paper, he's the perfect candidate for writing academic papers that no one will ever notice. However, during his postgraduate thesis in London, he asked a question almost no one outside of academia asks: Can political science and international relations be taught through a board game? Everything started from that question. A few years later, instead of pursuing a research career, he founded a publishing house.

The problem was that Varnavas couldn't design games, and he knew it. In the summer of 2019, he entered a game design competition in Greece with a rough prototype and ended up attending a talk by a professional game designer named Vangelis Bagiartakis — over twenty published titles, an MSc in Physics, seven years in the IT industry before designing games full-time. At the end of the talk, he approached him. Vangelis later recounted that moment: "He was focused. He had real passion, a vision. He didn't just want to make a game; he wanted to make something that would help people."

World Order is the second game. Same two authors, same publishing house, same main illustrator — Polish Miłosz Wojtasik, a graduate of the University of Silesia, already the visual voice of Hegemony. To cover the 375 cards of this expanded edition, Angga Satriohadi, an Indonesian founder of Gong Studios in Bandung, was added. Art direction again by Katerina Xerovasila, the same as for Hegemony. Everything is hand-drawn: the publishing house has publicly stated that it does not use AI for illustrations and graphics, a position that is increasingly less taken for granted. World Order's Kickstarter, which closed in November 2024, exceeded two million euros across combined platforms. It is now arriving in Italy through Ghenos Games, in an expanded version.

Four players, four superpowers: the United States, China, Russia, the European Union. Everyone starts with twelve action cards. Everyone can do the same eight things: invest, form alliances, move troops, build bases, engage in a region, trade, produce, draw growth cards. The rules are identical for everyone.

What changes is the composition of the deck. And it doesn't change for balance. It changes because each deck is a card transcription of that power's real geopolitical doctrine in 2010.

At the end of each round, you reveal the cards you haven't played. They give you resources and research points, which you spend at the market to buy new cards. The cards you buy go to the top of your deck. You draw them immediately on the next turn. It's a very tight loop: six rounds in total, no time to rebuild a strategy from scratch. You have to decide each round if the market card will be useful in your deck for the next two turns or if you need it in your hand for the next turn. These are two different kinds of patience, and you can't have both.

The stated academic foundation is the Political Realism of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz — the theory that states operate in an anarchic system with no higher authority and act only to maximize power and security. Each of the four powers had an academic consultant with a dedicated PhD for its design: five researchers in total, from Oxford, King's College, Cornell, SOAS, William & Mary. World Order is not geopolitics in name only. It is geopolitics revised by those who teach it at university.

Anyone familiar with Hegemony arrives here with only one question: is it worth it? Is it better? Is it different? International reviews are split into two factions that don't communicate, and this is the most interesting thing. I will try to summarize them without taking sides.

Comparison

The Same DNA, Two Different Animals Hegemony simulates conflict within a nation — four social classes in the same country, completely different rules for each, to be learned four times. World Order simulates conflict between nations — four powers playing by the same rules, but with decks embodying different doctrines. The former is a game of forced empathy. The latter is a game of pure logic. The theoretical framework is opposite. Hegemony stems from Gramsci and Marx: cultural hegemony, internal contradictions, class struggle. World Order stems from Morgenthau and Waltz: international anarchy, national interest, balance of power. Literally: the first game takes criticism of the system seriously, the second takes its unshakeable logic seriously. Roleplay does not transfer. Everyone who has tried both says the same thing: in Hegemony, players spontaneously start speaking in the first person — "we of the working class," "as a capitalist, I cannot accept." In World Order, this does not happen. You are a State, not a person within a State. The distance is colder, more analytical. For some, this is the biggest loss. For others, it's exactly what was needed: a simulated system where playing Russia doesn't mean playing Putin. The rules are simpler in World Order, but the games are longer. Hegemony is taught four times but plays in 90-180 minutes. World Order is taught only once, but with four experienced players, it rarely goes under three hours — and with beginners, it exceeds four. The research phase at the end of each round, when everyone goes to the market to buy cards, can take an entire hour in a four-player game. A review on Talking Shelf Space, after thirty minutes of play: "Thank God for NATO, otherwise I'd be in deep shit." That's the moment you realize that a single social rule of the game — the US and EU never militarily attack each other — is the thing keeping you alive. And that outside the table, outside the game, that's exactly what has happened for eighty years.

Hegemony was an emotional experience disguised as an economic game. World Order is a cold system that makes you understand why certain things, off the table, never end. After trying both, it's unclear which one tells the more uncomfortable truth.