Excellent game !!!

[bwiser]

Dear Miguel,
I just want to say - thanks for this masterpiece!

Can't stop playing it

Actually I wanted to start a new PON campaign but then got distracted by Espana 1936. Though I am not Spanish I was always interested in the Spanish Civil War ever since my youth when I read Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls and the protagonists doomed fight of the International Brigades against the Evil. Now: Finally I can show the Nationalists who the master is

Seriously - I think that you did a tremendous job in meticulously model the two sides. I only started one game with the Republic and can tell that they are a tough nut to manage especially in the beginning. I am in mid 1937 by now and managed to defeat the Nationalist in the North and Mid parts of Spain thanks to the strong Basques (Aguirre) and Miaja who I set against Franco's army and who is a very special challenge ...

I especially love the diverse means to go against the enemies, deliveries by the Soviets, mixed brigades, etc. - lots of things to consider. And I love the tightness of resources - sometimes I literally have the feeling to improvise - therefore this game for me is able to create the atmosphere of this very special conflict.

Some points of improvements, which would make it even better:
- I would prefer a different air fighting model instead of the RGDs, at least like in RUS or TEAW, also I would like to see models of the I-16 and SB-2s like the breguets
- more pictures for the leaders - by now I have leaders 10x with the same pictures which confuses things...
- more problems with managing the anarchists which would be more historical I think
- regarding the Nationalist side I cannot tell as i only had this one game with the Republic yet

Again: Thanks for a really great game.

PS: That's a very good reference for Thirty years war which I definitely will try out later this year ....

[Taillebois]

"- more pictures for the leaders - by now I have leaders 10x with the same pictures which confuses things..."

+1 - even if they are just randomly generated - it is confusing having ten stacks all with the same picture.

But as one of the rare SCW games well done. NB Hearts of Iron has a SCW scenario if anybody is interested.

[ERISS]

Some points of improvements, which would make it even better:
- I would prefer a different air fighting model instead of the RGDs, at least like in RUS or TEAW

Maybe what the dev thought: RUS model is too hazardous for the new air tactics of the Nationalist side, and as it can't mixes with the RegionalDecision model, then the RD model has been applied to the Republic side too. In RCW, the precision tactic was very random (often just some trouble, it could well succeeds sometimes like the interdiction of cavalry at Tsaritsyn), so in RUS its model is good. I don't know about TEAW. But I'm okay that switching a tactical unit to a strategical RD is not better for the historical ambience.

- more problems with managing the anarchists which would be more historical I think

I think in the beggining of the game, the Republican player as to make a choice:
. making war hoping for international liberal bourgeoisie help: going to Mallorca first (Zaragoza will be freed with the help of French and/or English) (historical choice badly conducted by the leaders)
. making war accepting the anarchist politics: going to Zaragoza first
Ingame it's badly crossbred. But in a successfull 1st option, the game has to be well completed: work ahaid!

- regarding the Nationalist side I cannot tell as i only had this one game with the Republic yet

The political choices of the Nationalist camp was more simple:
It was more easy to Franco as he was lucky (concurrent leader naturaly dead, or murder still undiscovered) and when he was abusing (putting concurrent leader in jails) the abused were accustomed to be abusivly disciplined so they agreed without mutinying.
So the Nationalist player should not be jealous if the Republican has the new choice above (and he is disciplined obeying lol).

[Ruskolnikov]

Totally agree Eriss

Regarding your comments : I think in the beggining of the game, the Republican player as to make a choice:
. making war hoping for international liberal bourgeoisie help: going to Mallorca first (Zaragoza will be freed with the help of French and/or English) (historical choice badly conducted by the leaders)
. making war accepting the anarchist politics: going to Zaragoza first
Ingame it's badly crossbred. But in a successfull 1st option, the game has to be well completed: work ahaid!

The republicans currently get to use the Anarchists troops with little regard to their politics or demands - clearly a significant divergence from history
In RUS gold there is a clever use of cohesion losses to simulate troops reluctance to fight once ww1 for Russia is over. I could see something like this being used (probably in conjunction with VP changes/penalties) when republican objectives are not the preferred anarchist objectives. Maybe at the start of the game there is an event where the republican player chooses which course they want to go - go the "co-operate with Anarchists way" and receive better anarchist troops(or cohesion) and VP penalties for not taking Zaragossa in a certain number of turns - divergence from the creates penalties (anarchists not fighting/lower cohesion, VP penalties etc)

I hope my rambling makes sense

regards

Mark

[JWW]

I bought this game last night. I honestly may never get around to play it. But after playing Thirty Years War I decided to buy it to support the developer and AGEOD.

[Granfali]

Congratulations for your(s) game(s) Miguel!!!

[ERISS]

The republicans currently get to use the Anarchists troops with little regard to their politics or demands - clearly a significant divergence from history

I don't think so. Anarchists were used with little regard, even by their own side (it's some traitorous from the CNT leaders)! You rather mean that "to use the Anarchists troops with little regard to their politics" is missing a drawback.

Anarchists were historically forced cooperating with Rep mainly from their own leaders, who took the choice, of cooperating, instead of people 'in order to not being dictatorial'..., it made the Ana dependant from Rep, and that's why it is called the "republican" side where Ana are seen for almost nothing...
But Republicans could hardly give them money back (they only sent promises to anarchists): Republican side had hardly a choice as they are a government for the whole Spain territory: Rep can't cooperate with Anarchist side as it would mean that they let the Ana revolution to spread, that Rep would lose territory maybe all Spain, and make Rep badly lose against Ana.
That's why Rep didn't let Ana to take Zaragoza in end July 1936, with the help of Ana 'official' leaders (not Durruti, who was standing insighted) who believed in the (antirevolutionnary) 'antifascist' politics: 'antifascism' makes Ana lose against Rep, in hope for Ana to not lose against Nat... And with letting Zaragoza to fascists, Reps gave a big winning step to Franco(Nat), rather than to Durruti (Ana). (Rep attacked Zaragoza only after starting to control the Ana here, Rep letting the town being reinforced by Nat for a full year...)
To make short, the republican 'collaborating' politic (later called 'antifascism') was a trap to make Ana lose: Better (Negrìn or Azana, or even) Franco than Durruti: the bourgeois English politic for Spain, enforced by the Commies.

In RUS gold there is a clever use of cohesion losses to simulate troops reluctance to fight once ww1 for Russia is over. I could see something like this being used (probably in conjunction with VP changes/penalties) when republican objectives are not the preferred anarchist objectives.

Yes, but I don't think it would be from regional situation, rather by whole political about their revolution.

Maybe at the start of the game there is an event where the republican player chooses which course they want to go - go the "co-operate with Anarchists way" and receive better anarchist troops(or cohesion) and VP penalties for not taking Zaragossa in a certain number of turns - divergence from the creates penalties (anarchists not fighting/lower cohesion, VP penalties etc)

Yes, but it can't be done too profoundly, as it would make a 3 player game like RUS: Rep + Ana vs Nat
It would be an España 1936 - Cloth Edition...

[Ruskolnikov]

I don't think so. Anarchists were used with little regard, even by their own side (it's some traitorous from the CNT leaders)! You rather mean that "to use the Anarchists troops with little regard to their politics" is missing a drawback.

Hi Eriss...yes, while poorly written by me I feel that there needs to consequences for the republicans to ignore ANA politics

I do understand the dilemna the Repubicans were in and your points are well made...but for me I feel that currently the Republican player has considerable flexibility regarding how they use ANA units - and no consequences or benefits for their actions.

regards

Mark

[Stauffenberg]

Fascinating thread, I just got ESPAÑA today and it is all that I had hoped it would be (the magic is in the details). I have played out some models of this, the last one done in TOAW by a couple of Spanish scenario designers. It was good but of course lacking the detail and rich historicity of this. From one month turns in a couple of pbems I am playing in TYW to this--quite the contrast in terms of scale and time period.

I've always had a major soft spot for anarchism. Not as chaos but as a synergism of individuals shaping history--were that possible.

Anarchism is "stateless socialism." ~ Michael Bakunin

And the other quote off the top of my head: "Government is for slaves: free men govern themselves." - Albert Parsons I believe.

It's a pity Nestor Mahkno died 2 years before this brutal civil war. Any thoughts on his influence or perhaps involvement had he lived through it?

[ERISS]

It's a pity Nestor Mahkno died 2 years before this brutal civil war. Any thoughts on his influence or perhaps involvement had he lived through it?

A better question should be about the influence of living.

Durruti and Ascaso met Makhno in Paris in 1927, and I believe Durruti didn't agree the 1926 anarchist Platform 'organisation first' of Makhno and Archinov (in reaction Voline writed the Synthesis 'richness first'): IIRC Durruti said the Platform was not in the Spanish way-of-life, despite the growing organisation of the CNT (and Durruti didn't want to be part of the organisation).
Durruti was more insighted than Makhno, but less though/fanatic (he was, but not as Makhno): Makhno would have surely shot the CNT leaders for their treachery 'cooperation', but Durruti took the CNT leaders explanations, even he knew the CNT lead was a mistake for sure for nobody would send true help to anarchists, none from Madrid nor France nor Moscow.

The organisational part of the Makhno character was in Cipriano Mera (he always was an anarchist, but like Makhno he agreed taking command, so ingame he is badly(?) made in republican faction), but he had not the beloved part of Makhno that was in Durruti.
Cipriano was who could be finally a Makhno for Spain, but Cipriano was in Madrid, in the very republican town of Spain where the CNT was not so strong.
Maybe Durruti 'died' in Madrid for fear of the combo of the two to form a Makhno, lol

- Albert Parsons

Read on wiki: Thanks for the reference.

[Durk]

I have learned so much about this conflict from playing and then from the reading my playing evoked.
I actually know some of the names and much of the flow of the conflict.

[Taillebois]

I think these games by AGEOD (and those by Paradox) are great for stimulating interest in history and I think more should be done to introduce them to schools. They are so different from the clickfest killer zombie games that give "wargames" a bad reputation in the press.

[LCcmdr]

I think these games by AGEOD (and those by Paradox) are great for stimulating interest in history and I think more should be done to introduce them to schools. They are so different from the clickfest killer zombie games that give "wargames" a bad reputation in the press.

As an educator, I'm for this suggestion! A few decades back, my history buddy used the game "Diplomacy" as his context for teaching how Europe became embroiled in WW1. He made them write all orders in Napoleonic Code (from the prior vinette). The kids loved it! He would invite my class (math) over to engage in WW2 games (Axis & Allies) between classes (on rain days). Again, the kids loved it. But, back then, an 8086/8088 was just hitting the market (remember PC-Dos 1.0)?