Six rounds. Ten delegations. A shared map of European claims.
Britain, France, Germany, Belgium / Leopold II, Portugal, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden–Norway. All attended Berlin. The last three are alternative-history expansion roles for a ten-team classroom; their playable claims are not a reconstruction of their historical territorial involvement. Abilities are game-balancing choices, not inherent national traits.
Suez begins under British strategic influence, reflecting the occupation of Egypt in 1882. Its claim gives +3 income and +2 prestige; navigation remains open to everyone. Named rivers extend inland claim access. Ports activate delegation-specific bonuses. Geography is selected and schematic, not exhaustive. Addis Ababa appears from the second round, after its establishment in 1886.
Economic strength = treasury + 3 × the resource value of recognized claims. Prestige comes from recognized tiles. Combined score = economic strength + 5 × prestige. Values are game units.
Hexagons, resource values, population bands, and claims are schematic game abstractions, not historical borders, measured population data, or a reconstruction of 1884. Recognition by European powers does not mean African consent or effective control. Ethiopia and Liberia are reserved from claims in this model; that does not mean they escaped imperial pressure.
The Berlin Conference established rules for colonial competition; it did not partition the whole continent in one meeting. The Belgium delegation simplifies Leopold II’s personal Congo project. African states and societies exercised agency and resisted conquest; this version does not model those struggles as a separate game system.
Historical background: Germany’s Federal Foreign Office
National Army Museum: Egypt and Sudan · Suez Canal Authority: canal history