E. Milton Duncan - 11:27am Sep 16, 2000 PST (#189 of 199)  

Mr. V, could you comment further on the shortfalls of the Arriba Espana
system? Your initial impressions of the game encouraged me to buy it. I
remember you giving it a close look awhile back on this board but alas
those posts are no longer available. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
charles vasey - 01:05pm Sep 16, 2000 PST (#190 of 199) 
"Britain's frontier is the coastline of its enemies" 

Milton. I'll see if I can find the review as post it here. Brian Train
provided lots of interesting counter-point, like ViV it sat on my table
a long time and led me back to numerous books. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
charles vasey - 01:07pm Sep 16, 2000 PST (#191 of 199) 
"Britain's frontier is the coastline of its enemies" 

Designed by Brian Train and published by the Microgames Co-op (at $8!!!)
this is an interesting example of the DTP game. The topic is the Spanish
Civil War on a strategic level. Having tinkered with it a number of
times I have to say that it does not look, to me, to go too far as a
macro-simulation, but its got enough jolly bits to encourage further
research and some admiration of parts of the assembly. It constitutes
good financial value to the historically-minded gamer, but really needs
a bit more work before it gives a real game on the subject. 

The game uses an A3 area map neatly printed in laser colour with some
very garish colours. The terrain features are cities, ports and mountain
areas. Each area is part of a Region, and the regions provide the
measures of control. The counters are very simple, and you will need to
cut and paste them. There are, as befits the topic, a lot of factions
and each has its own colour scheme. The Nationalists have their own
units in blue, purple Moors/Foreign Legion, grey Carlist requetes, and
green Italians of the CTV. The Government fields four gobernito armies
(the separatists of Asturia, Santander, the Basques and the Catalans) in
orange with different symbol fills, the Popular Army is yellow, the
Anarchists in black, the POUM in red, and the International brigades in
pink (yes, pink pinkos). That all sounds very jolly but when laid out on
the garish map the whole thing forms a complete mess of colours with no
common themes connected the units of each side. A bit more thought
needed here. 

The game hangs upon PSPs, political support points. You receive these
for capturing Regions, destroying enemy divisions, and from having
foreign support. You lose points by the reverse of the previous items,
for attempts to get foreign support and (for the Government) for purging
the various factions that render the Reds less effective. 

The units represent the brigades and divisions of the two sides. I think
it unlikely that the actual strengths could be achieved (the Nats had
over sixty divisions at the end of the war per Bolin, this would stretch
the counter-mix) nor can the mix be right (of 500,000 Nats at one stage
Hugh Thomas reckons 100,000 were Carlists, there are however very few
Carlist units in the game). This would not particularly matter were it
not for the Italian CTV which comes bowling at historical size to
confront an ahistorically low number of Republicans - watching those
Eyties motor! Where questions lie about size and mix there are many
other possibilities of factors being over (or under) simulated. However
these are matters of degree, at least the game attempts something in
most areas. [Brian Train: Yes, I know the Nats had over 60 divisions by
war's end and the Government probably had even more. However, "Division"
was a meaningless term during the war: there was absolutely no
standardisation in structure, numbers, or performance among between or
within any of the national or political forces in the game, at any time.
Hence, the division and brigade counters are more like amalgamations of
columns and groups than anything else - I didn't want to go to the
lengths of the 'piece-of-change' counters used in many other games, also
wanted to show how the armies improved over time (building divisions,
etc.). You should also know that the first version of the game had about
200 counters: with the ability to print up 280 we made more of
everything available, to allow the players to build their armies as they
wish. As for the Carlists, many of those 100,000 Hugh Thomas talks about
are static militia; many others are incorporated into Nationalist units.
This is what I did with the Falangist party militia: they were disliked
by many Spanish Army regulars but served in the same units to more or
less the same standards, so it would have served no real purpose to
distinguish.] I would buy a degree of what Brian says there, with the
exception that the Carlist support emanating from Navarre made that area
vital for the Nationalists, and I still think the CTV over-egged for its
historical entry point, but see a later suggestion to beef up counter
numbers. 


charles vasey - 01:08pm Sep 16, 2000 PST (#192 of 199) 
"Britain's frontier is the coastline of its enemies" 

As well as units both sides can buy from foreign supporters armour, air
and artillery assets. These can be used to build up DRMs, each in
slightly different ways. 

The Sequence opens with a Random Events Phase. These can really jigger
up the game so be prepared for some tears before bedtime if you use
them. Fifth Columns disrupt Government units; French and British
elections alter the stance towards the Republic; Collectivisation gives
PSP to the Government; Atrocities afflict the highest PSP side; Trade
Unions mobilise (free POUM or Anarchist units); Falangists march (free
Nationalist brigades); Stalinist Leanings force the Government to choose
between purging the POUM and Anarchists and losing vital USSR support
(that’s 2d6 of PSP down the tubes); the losing side can be obliged to
launch an offensive; Peasant revolts can disrupt Nationalist units; a
Diplomatic crisis can tip supporters against the recipient; Coups d’etat
cause military activities to be frozen; the rebels can strike a deal
with Texaco; but then the Government can benefit from an “Arms to Spain”
rally. Its all good stuff, but you may find it best to avoid these
Random Events until you have practised the game a bit. 

Random Events disposed of we start the Rebel Turn (an exact copy of the
Government turn which follows it). The Political Phase sees attempts to
influence Foreign Support. One does this by paying 2 PSP and dicing to
see if you move the counter of one nation up or down the track. There
are six nations, Mexico and USSR are capable of support/intervention for
the Republic, Britain and France which could swing either way, and
Italy, Portugal and Germany which can support the rebels. Each track
runs from Neutral to Support then to Intervention. To get big movements
both sides can buy up to a +3DRM at the cost of 1d6 PSP for each +1DRM.
This covers the internal effect of having to smarm up to beastly
foreigners. Supporting and Intervening nations provide 1d6 and 2d6 PSP
support (but only one nation counts). Much more important is the supply
of equipment, this comes in handy dandy equipment points (EPs). At
support level USSR, Italy and Germany can each provide 1d6 EPs a turn,
the other nations just one EP. At Intervention levels the Big Three
provide 2d6 EPs (and the Italians send the CTV), and the others provide
1d6 EP. In the sad event that no-one supports you (naughty rivals can
pull your support away from you) you lose 1d6 PSP. 

Politics aside in the Strategic Phase the player builds, or improves his
units (from brigades to divisions, and to double-step divisions - if one
nation is intervening, presumable sending advisors). One can also
purchase Asset Points at a cost of 1d6 EPs but these can suffer from the
naval blockade of the neutral nations. Finally sea movement and air
movement is allowed. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
charles vasey - 01:09pm Sep 16, 2000 PST (#193 of 199) 
"Britain's frontier is the coastline of its enemies" 

In the Organisation Phase all the units in an Area are sorted into
stacks (called Battlegroups). The Rebels can stack up to four units, but
the Government (with its poorer officer quality) only three counters.
These battlegroups move and fight together, but cannot combine with
other battlegroups. 

In the Combat Phase Battlegroups attack enemy stacks, and in the
Counterattack Phase any enemy battlegroup unattacked may attack friendly
Battlegroups. 

Finally for the player turn one can recover Disrupted units (a policy
influenced by troop quality, by a very high or very low PSP level, and
whether there are friendly undisrupted faces in the Area). 

After the Republican Turn, there is a Turn Interphase where control
changes are monitored and PSP recorded. Play going on until one side
hits zero PSP (the Tory Option) or the last Turn (April-May 1939 is
encountered). Brian has now suggested that the first three phases are
performed simultaneously by both sides so that the Republicans get to
build before the Nationalists get to move. 

The Political rules are very neat, giving the Government side a taste of
the difficulty of factional warfare. The possibilities of recalcitrant
Falangist or Carlist parties is not demonstrated in the game (and this
follows the historical model) so the problems are those of the Left. The
Republicans suffer from the support of the six factions (POUM,
Anarchists and the four gobernitos). Unless one EP is spent on each
faction each turn then 1PSP is lost for each miffed faction. At certain
stages the counter-mix will oblige more than one EP to be spent (to
build a division for example). In the early turns of the war the
Republican EP count may be as low as four, so something has got to give
(and in those turns the factions are less militarily effective than the
Popular Army). One can get away without support only if the Nats take
the capital of that faction (the Anarchists, POUM and Catalans share
Barcelona) OR the Republic purges the faction at the cost of 3d6 PSP.
Most of us prefer the slow death to the radical surgery. Not only are
the gobernito troops less effective but they refuse to go more than one
Region from their home region. The little tinkers can cause even more
trouble by refusing to cooperate with each other. In the Organisation
Phase one cannot stack POUM/Anarchist formations with Popular
Army/International Brigade formations, and Italians refuse to stack with
anyone. 

EPs (equipment points you will remember) come not only from the Foreign
Aid but from local industry. This yields 3EP in the first turn
(August-September 1936) but 13 EP by the last turn. These EPs are
available to the holders of various key cities (in order of importance)
Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid, Valencia and Seville. The first four start
out in Government hands and Seville is a latecomer, presumably the
Hispano-Suiza plant built there. 

Brigades can be built by either side, but to build one step divisions
one must have a supporting Foreign power, and to build two-step
divisions one needs an Intervening Power. One can also build up Cadre
Levels by spending EPs, allowing one to built the Durutti Column. Assets
have a variable cost (those money-grubbing foreigners) and certain units
can only come from particular regions. Moroccans from Spanish Morocco,
and Carlists from Navarre for example. Furthermore only 2 EP may be
spent each turn on raising Colonial, International Brigade or Italian
forces. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
charles vasey - 01:09pm Sep 16, 2000 PST (#194 of 199) 
"Britain's frontier is the coastline of its enemies"
 
Combat is the area where I feel the game goes off the rails. Look at the
situation maps in Hugh Thomas’s book, there is remarkably little
activity in terms of control swapping once the initial moves were
completed. Major offensives are launched to capture one province, yet in
the game these change hands (they approximate to an Area) easily. It is
true that the further into the game you go the more chance of heavy unit
density and less decisive results. However, even in the early stages of
the war the large scale swapping of areas did not occur that seems to
occur in the game. In addition, the nature of area-based combat is such
that the simulation of what was basically a frontal method is very
difficult. Attacks into one province can find themselves entirely
surrounded by enemy areas (but not always out of supply). This looks
wrong, and that means that it feels wrong. You will have to accept with
Arriba Espana that its interest is in the political and diplomatic
systems rather than the journeyman combat of armies. 

The structure is nice and neat. Battlegroups attack other battlegroups
using odds. The column is adjusted according to Cadre Values; the
Factions are -1 in 1936 (0 thereafter), the Popular Army, Nationalist
and Carlist have a Cadre value of zero, and the Colonials, Italians and
International Brigades +1. In one swoop you can simulate the effect of a
bandera or tabor attacking a militia unit in July 1936 (the words
“knife” and “butter” come to mind). Occupying a city also improves the
odds one column (as does mountain terrain). Winter also moves matters to
the left, that is in favour of the defenders. Air formations can be
called in (on offence or defence) to any combat - which makes them very
flexible - as a dice modifier. Armour and Artillery must be used in the
Battlegroups themselves. Armour adds one to the dice on attack (no
defence effect) whereas artillery can modify eitherway. Armour may also
be used in Breakthrough attacks, which consist of an additional attack
on other enemy Battlegroups where all of one defending BG are
eliminated. This can only be made by Armour APs plus one brigade of
infantry for each of the rest. Counter attacks can only be made by
defending BG’s not in a city, but they do not require an EP to launch
(normal attacks need a EP where more than one division participates).
Having a very high or very low PSP level helps or hinders you or your
enemy, as it is worth a column shift in combat and makes a difference
when trying to recover from disruption: this collapse of morale happened
in the last 4-6 months of the war in the Republican armies. 

Combat results are “Contact” (nothing happens), “Disruption” (units
inverted at half strength), “Losses” (brigades and one step division
die, two-step divisions go to remnant status) and “Elimination” (all
units except two-step divisions are eliminated, with remnants for the
former). The chart seems unusually decisive at low density, but very
slow at other levels. If two brigades attack one brigade in a city there
is no way that the defenders can win, two results out of six will give a
Contact, but otherwise at least one unit must be lost. However, if the
full Battlegroup of three brigades is attacked by four (in the open) the
defenders can only be eliminated by a six because the other results do
not kill more than two units. Density is more important than strength.
Whatever this means it leads to a lot of tooing and froing, and very
unhistorical it feels too. Defending with one unit is the supremely
pointless activity in terms of defensive stature, although it is the way
to control cities. Another effect of this is that divisions (with a
combat value of four) fighting four brigades (same value) are at a great
disadvantage in that they can take one loss whereas their opponents can
take four. This is just a dorky system, and it needs improvement. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
charles vasey - 01:10pm Sep 16, 2000 PST (#195 of 199) 
"Britain's frontier is the coastline of its enemies" 

[Brian Train; OK, what I wanted to demonstrate here was: depth (2-step
divisions) and combat assets (Cadre Levels, a high or low PSP level, and
AP) count for more than sheer numbers. In a battle with low numbers of
units on both sides, ceteris paribus, things will tip to one side or
another. I don't think this is so ahistorical: the brigades that
predominate in the armies in the first few turns of the game were very
brittle formations and, like most civil wars, more people ran away than
were killed when battle was joined in small numbers on roughly equal
terms. This is why wonky things can happen in the 1-1 to 3-2 band of the
CRT: if you don't want to run the risk, then you should attack with
greater numbers or better troops, and throw in some aeroplanes and
artillery while you're at it. Let me ask you this: what kind of combat
system would you have preferred to see in this game? I discarded an
earlier AE-DR-EX etc. version as too simplistic.] 

A good question, I suspect one needs two CRTs - one for the first year
when we were still in the era of the 1,000 column, and the second for
when the front stabilised. Of course the current CRT will give both
results if you have enough defenders in the second phase. The answer may
simply be that the build up of troops necessary to establish a strong
defence cannot be achieved under the current EP levels, we may need an
interphase in which both sides can build new units early in the game? I
stress a joint-interphase because I do not see the Nats as having a
particular advantage in this area. We must however recognise the
importance of foreign supplies of weapons in some of this, perhaps
double EPs could be received in these interphases and used for building
or improving units only, no Asset Points - Nats place first. The
Interphase occurs before the first two Winter turns of the game. 

[ Brian Train: Well, in a sense I've already done this. The large
numbers of men who showed up in the first month or so have already been
subsumed into the opening forces - for example, almost 40% of the
Government forces (9 of 24 brigades) are Gobernito or party militia
volunteer units, which didn't exist on 6 July 1936. To a lesser extent
the same is true of the Rebel forces, with the Carlist units and the
Falangists who have been incorporated in the Nationalist force pool.
This allowed me to demonstrate the importance of the militias to the
Government cause early in the war until the Popular Army could be got
ready. I found that both armies reached quite respectable sizes quickly,
without having any EP surges.] 

And that is where we come undone because the level of units we required
to bolster our fronts meant we needed those extra units. There are
clearly large differences in playing styles. 

charles vasey - 01:12pm Sep 16, 2000 PST (#196 of 199) 
"Britain's frontier is the coastline of its enemies" 

Movement seems to be infinite until you hit the enemy. Once in an enemy
Area you can move out next turn into an Area without an enemy unit,
which means that one needs to keep all rear-areas occupied to stop the
enemy walking through you next turn! Ay Carumba as Bart Simpson would
say! Furthermore (if I have understood this right) you can shift large
blocks of troops anywhere in Spain out of a Contested Area and launch an
immediate offensive in the new enemy-occupied Area!! Two months to
extract, move and insert such an attack is pretty nifty work, and nifty
work that I do not think was ever done. I am going to suggest that units
withdrawing from an enemy occupied Area can only move through [two]
other areas in a turn (one of which must be an enemy-free area). I also
reckon that you should only be able to withdraw if you leave sufficient
forces behind, equal/half of the enemy. 

Supply is lightly handled. A Battlegroup is in supply if it is 
in a friendly controlled Region (basically one in which the majority of
cities belong to your side)  in an Area where the city is
occupied by friendlies (one city per Area)  in any other Area
but adjacent to a Area that meets one of the above OR the landmass of a
supporting nation (France or Portugal). Gobernito units are never in
supply if their capital city is occupied. 

Control of Regions is determined by adding up twice the number of
controlled cities and scoring this or less on 1d6. If both sides manage
the trick the Region is contested. Control is very important for PSP
purposes. One gets 1 PSP per Region controlled before the Turn
Interphase. The numbers of changes in control give 2 PSP for the player
taking control and 1d6 loss for the player losing control. A sudden
collapse of Regional control can be disastrous. 

Play continues until one side has zero PSP or the end of the 14th Turn
in which case the Government wins. As so much of the game favours the
Rebels this requirement to collapse the Republic needs to be remembered.

The First Turn is another weak point in the game. The Rebels start out
holding much of Leon, Navarre, Old Castile and a few other bits. With
double air and sea movement and good equipment rolls they can build
units and fan out deep in Aragon, Catalonia and New Castile. With the
first move they are substantially able to pin the Government back, of
course the Government can recapture these areas at a cost, but it is
highly unlikely to reach the historical start lines. To add to the fun
the Government forces are stuck holding a lot of key terrain (the
capitals of the gobernitos, and the EP cities (Barcelona, Madrid and
Bilbao). In order to defend they need at least two counters (maybe more)
which leaves few opportunities to occupy or recapture other territory.
The only answer is to recognise that the Nationalists who are on the map
are probably busy most of the first turn slaughtering the local rojos.
They cannot (therefore) move unless they arrive by air or sea. Make it
so Number One. 

[Brian Train: First turn: the doubled air and sea movement means three
extra brigades making it to European Spain from Morocco. That's not
much, considering that the Government player starts with 24 brigades on
the Continent (to be fair, 9 of them are militia/Gobernito) and the
Rebel starts with 20. The Rebel player can spread out as thinly as he
wants, but I found in playtesting that 1) he who attacks everything gets
almost nothing and 2) he will be defeated in detail once the Government
player has had his Strategic Phase. Don't forget that the Rebel has to
garrison his areas too, since all Regions are Contested until both
players have had a go at consolidating territory. 

Here also we have the issue of time-scale: if we were working at the
Europa scale of say, two weeks/turn then I would have written something
freezing units while they slaughter the local rojos, priests, uppity
peasants, or Guardia Civil. However, the first turn covers the first two
months, so I've sort of subsumed that interlude of bloodletting. 

I also notice in general you seem disappointed that the battle lines
don't end up just as they did in 1936. I think there were so many weird
things going on in those first few chaotic weeks/months (Quiepo de Llano
taking a city by radio broadcast, Franco turning aside to relieve
Toledo) that it would be impossible, or at any rate pointless, to try
and recreate them. It was not inevitable that the situation fall out the
way it did historically - almost anything could have happened ( if the
Rebels had made a better job of their coup, it would have been over in
two days and there would have been no War at all!) If I thought it were
so, then I would have written an article or book about the Civil War,
not designed a game where the players could try things out for size.] 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
charles vasey - 01:13pm Sep 16, 2000 PST (#197 of 199) 
"Britain's frontier is the coastline of its enemies" 

To respond to Brian’s points, however long it took to kill the locals on
both sides it took some time and this is not reflected in the first turn
move of the Nats. Nor is the shortage of fuel afflicting the columns.
Furthermore occupying empty Areas is not attacking, it is just movement.
The Government may be able to attack some weak units but he will not
recapture all the areas in my experience particularly given his low unit
count. The fluid nature of the first turn indicates to me the need to
have a spliced sequence for those days. That is both sides perform each
phase (except movement) in the order Nationalists/Government before
going on to the next Phase. In movement both sides alternate movement of
Battlegroups (turn them at an angle to act as a reminder) until all have
moved or refuse to move. Now you really can choose between racing for
Madrid or freeing the Alcazar of Toledo. I have still never ever managed
to achieve a front line in the position which the Republic actually
experienced in all my playings. It might be me, but I wonder if it is
not the game. (Perhaps I am better Fascist that Red!). 

There are some interesting bits and bobs in the Optional Section, the
Variable Doctrine Rule means that for each type of asset Point you dice
to see its effect. Roll a six and your armour are +2 on attack, roll a
one and they are -2 on defence and cannot be used on a Breakthrough
(which translates as the German and French tank doctrines). 

The Historical scenario is designed to take out all those political
decisions. Your reinforcements, EP and AP all appear according to Brian
Train’s view of history. One immediate effect is to remove the losses of
PSP for seeking foreign support, a dramatic change to the tempo of the
game. Furthermore the numbers of AP and EP look a bit suspect. On Turn
One the Rebels have 3 EP for having support from two nations (Italy and
Germany) which is a low score but they get two APs as well which could
cost between two and twelve EPs, lets say they cost seven (the average)
and that (as is likely) they hold no Spanish EP sites. Is the game
saying that the score for the turn was ten (that is the EPs left are
after buying the APs)? Ten on 2d6 is high but not impossible. On Turn
Two the EP score is twelve plus another seven EP-average for APs. That
comes to 19, a high(!!!!!) score for 2d6. By the time 1938 comes both
sides are getting two or three EPs a turn, despite the fact that they
probably have the possibility of two powers intervening or supporting
per side (which would give between 4d6 and 3d6). Of course one way this
might happen is that the two sides have started to launch diplomatic
offensives against the foreign supporters of their enemy. However, as it
is harder to persuade an “enemy” ally to move away from his natural
Spanish proxy than to pull your own natural supporter back towards you,
the fall of in support still looks odd. It is quite clear that the
normal foreign support rules are not going to give the historical rate
ever, a much more complex mechanism is needed for that. (See for example
the interesting ideas in Phil Kendall’s Angola. Sadly the Historical
game is not going to give the PSP cost which we expect, but we are
(oddly enough) still going to get PSP support from these nations.
Finally, in the Historical scenario the International Brigades are
removed in December 1938 for reasons which the normal rules fail totally
to cover. 

[Brian Train: Your comments on the Historical Scenario not translating
well into the 'free-form' game are well taken. This is a problem with
many games that start with a historical set-up and then provide
reinforcements etc. On the scale of what happened historically. For
example, let's say the German player in a game of Third Reich starts in
1942, has some good luck and stomps everything in sight. Should all
those cheap 1-3 Volkssturm units show up in 1944, on schedule, if his
back isn't against the wall? No, because historically they didn't show
up until the desperation of the situation demanded it. Similarly, in the
schedule of EP we see foreign support falling way off for the Rebels
from 1938 onward - Germany and Italy were still interested in what was
happening, but historically by mid-1938 the Rebels were marching to a
foregone military conclusion and the Fascist powers were concentrating
on their own military building programs. I may yet go back and revise
those EP/AP schedules. Similarly with the International Brigades:
historically, by the end of 1938 there were few foreigners left and the
Brigades themselves were almost entirely Spanish. In game terms, the
pink units would have been replaced by PA units with +1 Cadre Level
markers. Astute and literate players would have done this already, since
they know when the Brigades are due to be withdrawn. Sending them home
was more or less a political gesture, with little effect on the way
things were swinging militarily. This is another reason why I didn't
spend time writing rules to deal with situations like this: in the end,
it really makes no material difference. Unfortunately, I have never seen
a copy of Angola so I don't know what 'interesting ideas' you're talking
about.] 

In Angola you got support from abroad when your scores got a bit low
(your patrons realising you needed help) until a certain point where if
you had further poor turns such support as you had was withdrawn (your
patrons realising you were going to lose). 

So what do we have? Lots of clever thought but two weaknesses. Firstly,
the combat system simply does not work sensibly, producing too much push
and shove. Secondly, the balance of supply and the Foreign Aid rules
fails to get close to history. It needs more work. But like many a Joe
Miranda game (to select another purveyor of the weird and wonderful) I
have already had much pleasure from it. Let us love it for its small
virtues since many games have none at all. 

[Brian Train: The game derailing from history: well, historically the
SCW was an awful lot like WW I, not too interesting on a strategic
scale. In general, I wanted to put something together that had all the
interesting bits of the war (factions, foreign powers, etc.) at a
time/space scale and game mechanics that allowed you to get it over with
in one night. In doing so, I found a lot of things could be rationalised
or cancel each other out, in the interests of simplicity and speed. I
don't think I've left too much out, and don't agree with you that the
combat system is a fatal weakness. I'm very pleased that this game
interests you so much, that you've obviously played it more than once
(many reviewers wouldn't go to such lengths!), and that you've asked for
my comments on your review. This is why I do what I do: it certainly
isn't for money (the prices Kerry charges cover production costs and
postage only: I don't see a dime). Thanks also for the comparison with
Joe Miranda, I like his work very much.] 

As do we all.