[Ticio]

Captain Gual (and others): what stats would you give Gravina if he were in the game? Like many others, I’m a bit perplexed as to why he’s not included.

Spanish history during the 18th century is tabout a great time that comes to end. Spanish empire reached its peak during the 16th century and lives its decline during the next centuries. It was a ship that had been sinking for a lot of time, which had been kept afloat due to the stubbornness, pride and courage of many of the Spaniards of that period.

Spain found itself at the end of the 18th century with a much diminished army and lack of material and economics resources. Moreover Spain was forced to fight alongside the French against the British, in an always difficult cooperation in the seas.

The Spanish armada was led by men aware of the above and also being conscious that their time was ending. In this sense the letter that Churruca sends to his brother shortly before the battle of Trafalgar is very enlightening:

“On the San Juan in Cádiz on 11 October. Dear brother: since we left Ferrol nobody has received their pay, despite these being declared in advance and classified as soldiers’ prest. To this end they are owed four months, and they hold no hope of seeing one real in a long time; they owe us four months of salary as well, but we won’t receive a morsel, despite the hard work we are doing: (…) This is the work with which we serve the King, that in no grade can we rely on our wages (…) If you come to hear that my ship has been taken, know that I am dead. ”

At Trafalgar Churruca nailed the flag to the mast. He ordered that it should not be taken down while he were still lived. His ship, San Juan Nepomuceno, fighted bravely against six enemy ships and it did not surrender until Churruca died reached by a cannonball which tore his leg.

Churruca was a capable commander, who endured to train his crew and organize the vessels he commanded. He was also a scientist, recognized after his death, inside Spain and also abroad. Moreover Churruca received many tributes and recognitions after his death, among others, he was posthumously promoted to admiral and his nephew received the title Count of Churruca.

These kinds of stories were very common at the fall of the Spanish empire. Characters dressed in fatalism, pride and honor sinking together with the rest of the empire.

Here you can find a lot of information about Spanish characters. It is a very interesting book from 1906 written by Edward Fraser.

https://books.google.es/books?id=VeFvCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT178&lpg=PT178&dq=churruca+san+juan+battle+of+trafalgar&source=bl&ots=DOlTfLXTpx&sig=ACfU3U2Qi96LKlN9nbbO_tPgnuduyFLlJg&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOtIjF4r7lAhW-A2MBHRmiA7g4ChDoATABegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=churruca%20san%20juan%20battle%20of%20trafalgar&f=false

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Ticio.

[Ticio]

I did not want to get mess in a historical discussion, but if you insist…

It is totally unfair to judge the effectiveness of a total fleet only analyzing one battle, which we should not forget that was full responsibility of Villanueve.

Let’s talk about Villanueve. He was an incompetent Admiral and the sole reason Napoleon put him in command of the fleet was just because all the competent ones were killed during the French revolution. His perk was not the luck, as Napaleon said, but the ability to run away from battle. You can review his performance in the battle of Nile, between others. I must admit that Villanueve has a valuable virtue for the French fleet because is tactic was to engage, try to disable the enemy ships and run away from the battle as fast as they can. And this is well reflected in the rulebook (aim high and more speed for French ships).

However we must not forget how the battle of Trafalgar came about. Villanueve was hiding from Nelson until he was trapped in Cadiz. Once there, he refuesed to leave until he learned of his dismissal by Napoleon. Then, without the fleet ready and bad weather for his objetives, he sailed on the worst moment. We all know Nelson’s battle plan, but what was Villanueve’s? His battle plan was to flee from Nelson and, if he appeared, turn back and hide again in Cadiz. So when he saw Nelson approaching, he performed a maneuver that left his forces disorganized and at Nelson’s mercy. And inexplicably it is included as the special French character for the French fleet.
If you don’t believe my arguments about Villanueve’s incompetence, let’s ask Napoleon his opinion on Villanueve (and I doubt Napoleon was very fond of the Spanish):
Napoleon wrote in a letter of 11 August 1805: “Gravina is all genius and decision in combat. If Villeneuve had those qualities, the battle of Finisterre would have been a complete victory”.

Where is Gravina in the Black Seas rules? It is not.
And I do not want to forget the “brave” Dumanoir, who at the beginning of the battle ignored the signals he received and fled from the battle with 4 line ships (302 guns in total, what could do this ships in battle?), while the rest of his squad turned to face the British (Spaniards and some Frenchs). Dumanoir was captured in Galicia 12 days trying to reach France.

If you want to learn about the courage and fulfillment of Spanish duty you can read about Cartagenas de Indias, Nelson in Canarian islands or Tolon Battle. Denying this to the Spaniards who fought at that time in inferiority and worse equipped than their enemies, is at least unfair.

As said, the Black Seas reflects in a positive way the French tactic of running away. This is a designers’s good decision which provides more fun to the players. Why don’t they include same positive approach in the Spanish flee? Weren’t they able to find inspiration for that? As said in my first post, I believe that Warlord lost an opportunity to make a great game and I am really sorry for that.

[Ticio]

I fully agree with the thoughts of Captain Gual. After reading the rulebook I realized Warlord has lost the opportunity to make a great game as they did with others.

If you compare this game with other historical games, you can see that all the factions have attractive rules to have fun playing them. For example in Bolt Action, Romanians, Italians and even partisans have their advantages when they were less successfully armies in comparison with other nationalities (Germans, Russians or Americans, for example).

Beyond the historical discussion of the effectiveness of each fleet, XVIII century was a period where many wars occurred and where you can find many stories as inspiration for your game rules. For example, if you read about Spanish history and battles in the last part of its empire, you realize that the Spanish armies do not lose its courage and combativeness even in the worst situations. For example, in Trafalgar Spanish fleet stood fighting against British even when the French ships were fled from battle. This can be easily transferred to the rules. Moreover it is the right approach, in my opinion, focus in the strengths and not in the flaws of the Spanish army, as Warlord did with British and French fleet.
As said, unfortunately Warlord has not make a good job with this game as it made with others. It’s a pitty.

[Author]

Posts