Troubles Board Game Faces Backlash in Northern Ireland

Published: 23 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

A planned board game that seeks to recreate the Northern Ireland Troubles as a strategic, dice-driven contest has ignited a fierce and emotional backlash across Northern Ireland, with victims’ groups warning that it risks retraumatising survivors and trivialising decades of violence, grief and unresolved pain. Although the game is still in development and not yet available for purchase, its emergence has reopened deep wounds in a society where the legacy of conflict remains ever-present.

The game, titled The Troubles: Shadow War in Northern Ireland 1964–1998, has been developed by Compass Games, a United States-based company known for producing historically themed military board games. According to its designers, the game allows players to assume the roles of various factions involved in the conflict, including the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the British army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, loyalist paramilitaries and nationalist and unionist political movements. Through a combination of cards, tokens and dice, players can engage in actions such as planting bombs, conducting security operations, negotiating political agreements and contesting elections, with the stated aim of “resolving” the conflict within a single extended play session of around six hours.

News of the game’s existence, first reported by the Belfast Telegraph, prompted swift condemnation from victims’ advocates and community representatives. Kenny Donaldson, director of the South East Fermanagh Foundation, which supports victims and survivors of the Troubles, said the concept showed a profound lack of understanding of the human cost of the conflict. He warned that many people who lived through the violence could feel deeply triggered by seeing their lived trauma transformed into a form of entertainment.

Donaldson said the game appeared to oversimplify a complex and deeply painful history, reducing decades of loss, fear and political struggle into a competitive exercise. He argued that such an approach risked minimising the suffering of victims and survivors, many of whom continue to live with physical injuries, psychological trauma and unresolved grief. For them, the Troubles are not a distant historical episode but an ongoing reality that shapes daily life.

Drawing a comparison to other global tragedies, Donaldson questioned how families of victims of the 11 September attacks in the United States might react if a similar board game were created about those events. He said the core failure of the project lay in its apparent assumption that the Troubles are safely consigned to the past, when in reality they remain deeply embedded in Northern Ireland’s political, social and cultural fabric.

Compass Games, based in Connecticut, had briefly listed the game for pre-order on its website at a price of $85 before the controversy erupted. The listing described a detailed and immersive experience spanning more than three decades of conflict, divided into multiple historical phases. Following the backlash, the company sought to emphasise that the project was still at an early stage and would not be released for several years.

Bill Thomas, the founder and president of Compass Games, said the current version of the game was far from final and remained subject to extensive development and play testing. He stressed that the company’s intention was not to make light of the conflict but to present a serious and historically grounded depiction of it. Thomas said Compass Games specialised in complex historical simulations and believed that games could serve as educational tools rather than mere entertainment.

According to Thomas, the original design submitted to the company was far more detailed and nuanced than he had expected, running to more than 200 pages of rules and background material. This complexity, he said, was evidence of the designer’s effort to grapple with the political and social dimensions of the conflict rather than presenting a simplistic or sensationalised narrative.

The game’s designer, Hugh O’Donnell, is a secondary school teacher based in Scotland. His design reportedly traces the roots of the Troubles back to the late nineteenth century, beginning with Westminster’s 1886 home rule bill and following the trajectory of Ireland’s partition and the creation of Northern Ireland. By doing so, the game attempts to situate the violence of the late twentieth century within a longer historical arc of political division and contested identities.

In its current form, the game allows between two and six players to take control of different factions, each with its own objectives, resources and constraints. Players must navigate a shifting landscape of security operations, public opinion and political negotiations. Paramilitary groups can choose between escalating violence or, in some scenarios, colluding with elements of the security forces. Political factions can decide whether to support armed campaigns, pursue electoral strategies or engage in power-sharing arrangements.

One controversial element highlighted by critics is the inclusion of real historical references, such as the IRA informer known as Stakeknife, whose activities remain the subject of ongoing investigations and deep controversy. The game’s cards are divided into eight historical “epochs”, covering periods such as the intense violence of the early 1970s, the hunger strikes of the early 1980s and the IRA’s “target mainland” bombing campaign in England during the mid-1980s.

Visually, the game uses colour-coded pieces to represent different actors in the conflict. Blue markers stand in for RUC troops and bases, black pieces represent IRA units and infrastructure, tan pieces signify British military forces, red denotes loyalist paramilitaries, while orange and green represent unionist and nationalist political movements respectively. Accompanying these components are a detailed rulebook and a historical playbook intended to provide context for players unfamiliar with the period.

Thomas has defended the educational value of the project, arguing that many younger people, particularly outside the UK and Ireland, have little understanding of the Troubles or their causes. He suggested that interactive formats such as board games could engage audiences who might not otherwise encounter this history through books or documentaries. In his view, making history engaging does not necessarily mean trivialising it.

He also questioned whether opposition to such projects risked consigning the memory of the conflict to obscurity outside Northern Ireland. Thomas said that while he recognised the pain endured by communities during the Troubles, he believed there was value in ensuring that the conflict was understood internationally, rather than forgotten or reduced to a few stereotypes.

However, critics in Northern Ireland argue that the issue is not whether the Troubles should be remembered, but how. Many feel that transforming the conflict into a game, particularly one that allows players to “win” by successfully deploying violence or political manoeuvring, crosses an ethical line. They argue that education about the Troubles should centre the experiences of victims and survivors, emphasising human cost rather than strategic outcomes.

The controversy has also highlighted broader debates about the commercialisation of history and trauma. In recent years, there has been increasing scrutiny of how conflicts, atrocities and tragedies are represented in popular culture, from films and television series to video games and interactive media. While some argue that such representations can foster understanding and empathy, others warn that they risk sensationalism and desensitisation.

In Northern Ireland, where peace remains fragile and political tensions persist, these concerns are particularly acute. Many families are still seeking truth and justice for killings that occurred decades ago. In this context, any portrayal of the conflict is likely to be judged not only on its historical accuracy but on its sensitivity to those who suffered.

As of now, Compass Games has not indicated whether it will alter or abandon the project in response to the criticism. Thomas has said the company remains open to dialogue and feedback as development continues. For victims’ groups, however, the very premise of the game raises questions that go beyond design details or disclaimers.

The debate sparked by The Troubles: Shadow War in Northern Ireland 1964–1998 underscores the enduring power of the past in Northern Ireland. It is a reminder that, for many, the Troubles are not a chapter closed but a lived experience that continues to shape identity, memory and politics. Whether the game ultimately proceeds or not, the reaction to it has already revealed how sensitive and contested the act of remembering can be.