Resuming the blog

As you may have noticed, the blog has had a few posts, interviews above all. This is because I have started the History and Heritage degree. The first year of the degree has taken up a lot of my time, this second year I have learned to manage my time better so that I can afford to write. Wargames and history go hand in hand and I think that they are not used as they should be. To get back to the blog I would like to start with a reflection on wargames and history and how this union can give us new perspectives.

One of the main reasons why we play these types of games is because we like to delve into the past, a window that allows us to see a very specific period and place. These games not only recreate battles and campaigns, but they allow us to immerse ourselves in a historical context, analyze the situations of the leaders and understand why they took them.

One of the points that we often overlook is historical recreation, they are very detailed and complex games, but they are for a reason. The designer of this type of game delves into the period like a researcher, he doesn't pull the game out of nowhere and this is reflected in the rules. This complexity, in some cases, represents the passion that the designer had about the period or about the battle in question. This research is supported by detailed maps, the topography of a conflict is very important and can give a unique touch to a game. The orders of battle reflect the strengths and weaknesses of each side and allow us to understand the importance of each unit.

An example of all of the above would be Andean Abyss, the COIN series is one of my favorites. The games in this series are abstract, but that has an explanation. We are dealing with an irregular conflict in Colombia, the fact that the representation of the insurgents' pieces is like this makes sense, we are never told what these pieces represent, we only know that it represents a cell, this fits very well with the mechanics of the insurgents. If we look at the terrain, we can see that, in a simple way, it represents very well what it means to operate in that type of terrain. I don't want to go into more depth, since I want to dedicate an article to each game in the COIN series.

And this brings us to the next thing: What am I going to publish? I want to increase the quality of the posts, the GMT interview section will remain more or less the same. Regarding the other articles, I want to focus on political violence, since that is what I want to investigate. I will try to publish a post every month.

Retomando el blog

Como habréis podido comprobar el blog ha tenido unas publicaciones bajas, entrevistas sobre todo. Esto se debe a que he iniciado el grado de Historia y Patrimonio. El primer año de carrera me ha comido mucho tiempo, este segundo año he aprendido a manejar mejor el tiempo para poder permitirme escribir. Los wargames y la historia van de la mano y creo que no se aprovecha como se debería. Para volver a retomar el blog me gustaría empezar con una reflexión sobre los wargames y la historia y como esta unión nos puede dar perspectivas nuevas.

Una de las principales razones por las que jugamos a este tipo de juegos es porque nos gusta adentrarnos en el pasado, una ventana que nos permite ver un periodo y un lugar muy concreto. Estos juegos no solo recrean batallas y campañas, sino que nos permiten sumergirnos en un contexto histórico, analizar las situaciones de los líderes y comprender por qué las tomaron.

Uno de los puntos que solemos pasar por alto es la recreación histórica, son juegos muy detallados y complejos, pero lo son por algo. El diseñador de este tipo de juegos se adentra como un investigador en el periodo, no saca el juego de la nada y esto se refleja en las reglas. Esa complejidad, en algunas ocasiones, representa la pasión que tuvo el diseñador sobre el periodo o sobre la batalla a tratar. Esa investigación viene respaldada por unos mapas detallados, la topografía de un conflicto es importantísima y puede darle un toque único a un juego. Los ordenes de batalla reflejan las fortalezas y debilidades de cada bando y permite comprender la importancia de cada unidad.

Un ejemplo de todo lo anterior sería Andean Abyss, la serie COIN es una de mis favoritas. Los juegos de esta serie son abstractos, pero eso tiene una explicación. Estamos tratando con una conflicto irregular en Colombia, que la representación de las fichas de los insurgentes sea así tiene un sentido, nunca se nos indica que representan esas fichas, solo sabemos que representa una celula, esto encaja muy bien con las mecánicas de los insurgentes. Si nos metemos en el tema del terreno vemos como, de una forma simple, representa muy bien lo que significa operar en ese tipo de terrenos. No quiero seguir profundizando, ya que quiero dedicar un artículo a cada juego de la serie COIN.

Y esto nos lleva a lo siguiente ¿Qué voy a publicar? Quiero aumentar la calidad de los post, el apartado de entrevistas de GMT seguirá más o menos igual. Respecto a los otros artículos me quiero centrar en la violencia política, ya que es lo que quiero investigar. Intentaré sacar un post cada mes.

Purgatorio: Men of Iron Volume VI Entrevista: Ralph Shelton

 

Las batallas se libraron en toda Italia desde mediados del siglo XII hasta mediados del siglo XIII y ambos bandos terminaron en la cima en un momento u otro. Este sexto juego de Men of Iron cubre algunas de esas batallas: comenzando con Federico Barbarroja tratando de recuperar las provincias rebeldes en Italia a finales del siglo XII, dando un giro hasta el siglo XIII con algunas batallas que marcaron el fin del gobierno directo de los Hohenstaufen en Italia. , ¡y termina con una guerra que, según el mito, se libró por el robo de un cubo de una ciudad a otra!

Las reglas y las imágenes que se muestran aquí no son definitivas.

Lo puedes encontrar en P500

Purgatorio: Men of Iron Volume VI Interview: Ralph Shelton

 

Battles raged across Italy from the mid-1100s to the mid-1300s with both sides ending up on top at one time or another. This sixth Men of Iron game covers some of those battles: beginning with Frederick Barbarossa trying to recapture rebelling provinces in Italy in the late 12th century, taking a spin through the 13th century with a few battles that spelled the end of direct Hohenstaufen rule of Italy, and ending with a war that myth says was fought over the theft of a bucket from one city by another!

The rules and images shown here are not final.

You can find it in P500

Founders of Reyvick Entrevista: Richard Garfield

 

Founders of Reyvick de Richard Garfield es un juego económico de especulación y competencia de 3 a 5 jugadores en el recién colonizado mundo de Reyvick. Cada jugador controla una empresa que recién comienza en el planeta y que intenta acumular la mayor riqueza y crear el mayor legado. Los jugadores utilizan a sus socios para recolectar recursos de sus activos y completar proyectos que promueven la investigación, la exploración y la construcción en todo el planeta. Al final de la partida, el jugador con la mayor combinación de riqueza, activos y proyectos gana el juego. Founders of Reyvick está ambientado en el dinámico y emocionante universo Away Team, creado por John Butterfield.

Las imágenes y reglas aquí mostradas no son finales.

Lo podéis encontrar en P500

Founders of Reyvick Interview: Richard Garfield

 

Richard Garfield’s Founders of Reyvick is a 3-5 player economic game of speculation and competition on the newly settled world of Reyvick. Each player controls a company just starting out on the planet and attempting to amass the most wealth and craft the greatest legacy. Players deploy their Partners to collect resources from their assets and complete projects furthering research, exploration, and building across the planet. At the end of the game, the player with the greatest combination of wealth, assets, and projects wins the game. Founders of Reyvick is set in the dynamic and exciting Away Team universe, created by John Butterfield.

The rules and images shown here are not final.

You can find it in P500

Lenin's Legacy Entrevista: Mathias Cramer

 

Lenin's Legacy es un trepidante juego para uno o dos jugadores sobre la lucha por el poder entre Stalin y Trotsky en los primeros días de la URSS, que comienza en el momento en que la salud de Lenin comenzó a debilitarse después de un fallido intento de asesinato en 1918 y culmina con la muerte de Lenin en 1924. Los jugadores asumirán el papel de Stalin o Trotsky, jugando cartas de un despliegue común (más una carta oculta cada uno) para hacerse con el control de "temas", como la NKVD, el Politburó y el acceso personal a Lenin.

Las reglas y las imágenes que se muestran aquí no son definitivas.

Lo puedes encontrar en P500

Lenin's Legacy Interview: Mathias Cramer

 

Lenin’s Legacy is a fast-paced solo or two-player game about the power struggle between Stalin and Trotsky in the early days of the USSR, starting the moment Lenin’s health began to weaken after a failed assassination attempt in 1918 and culminating with Lenin’s death in 1924. Players will take on the role of either Stalin or Trotsky, playing cards from a common display (plus one hidden card each) to gain control of “issues,” such as the NKVD, Politburo, and personal access to Lenin.

The rules and images shown here are not final.

You can find it in P500

Coast Watchers Interview: Volko Ruhnke

 

Coast Watchers takes you into this struggle between Allied intelligence teams and Japanese hunters. Standup blocks hide coastwatching stations, guerrillas, refugees, and stranded Allied crew. Gameboard recesses hold the blocks snug. Facedown counters hide the buildup of Japanese forces, which the coastwatchers seek to observe and report to headquarters. Other counters show where Japanese patrols are searching for coastwatchers or go into and get drawn from a cup to run Japanese searches and Allied delivery missions.

The rules and images shown here are not final.

You can find it in P500

Coast Watchers Entrevista: Volko Ruhnke

 

Coast Watchers te lleva a esta lucha entre los equipos de inteligencia aliados y los cazadores japoneses. Los bloques de pie esconden estaciones de vigilancia costera, guerrillas, refugiados y tripulaciones aliadas varadas. Los huecos del tablero de juego mantienen los bloques ajustados. Las fichas boca abajo ocultan la acumulación de fuerzas japonesas, que los vigilantes costeros intentan observar e informar al cuartel general. Otros contadores muestran dónde las patrullas japonesas buscan observadores costeros o entran y salen de una taza para realizar búsquedas japonesas y misiones de entrega aliadas.

Las reglas e imágenes aquí mostradas no son finales. 

Lo podéis encontrar en P500

Sovereign of Discord: A Fire in the Lake Expansion. Proyect Beef-up (English)

We continue searching for the history of the cards of this Fire in the Lake expansion, a time of the Vietnam War that went unnoticed, but laid the foundation for what would happen in the following years.

In the previous post, we could see how Diem's reforms increased the influence of the VC in South Vietnam and this would have consequences for the United States.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy ordered an increase in the number of American military advisors in South Vietnam.

The Beef-up project was carried out for several reasons:

The US government was concerned about the growing VC threat and the southern government was being overwhelmed.

He wanted to prevent the entirety of Vietnam from falling into communist hands, as it would be a precedent for other countries in the region.

The United States government wanted to demonstrate its commitment to its ally.

This project was entrusted to General Edward Lansdale, a counterinsurgency expert. The project began in 1961 and was completed in 1962. During that time the number of American military advisors increased from 3,205 to 16,000.

The advisors were deployed throughout the country, improving the combat capabilities of the Vietnamese army, both individually and as a team. They focused mainly on tactics to combat guerrilla warfare. Military equipment of all kinds was also provided to the South Vietnamese army.

Advisors were often involved in combat situations. In 1931, before the start of the project, there were 134 American casualties. American casualties increased rapidly after the start of the project. In 1962, there were 335 casualties and in 1963, 723.

The project cost around $1 billion. The increase in advisors was seen as a sign that the United States was increasing its involvement in the war, and many predicted it would eventually involve the country in the war. They tried to minimize the impact of the project, stating that it was a temporary measure. However, he helped lay the groundwork for the deployment of American troops to Vietnam. Thanks to this project, valuable time was bought for the southern government, as it helped them contain the VC for several years, but it was not enough.