CJCS 8 (1) pp.

143–158 Intellect Limited 2016

Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies

Volume 8 Number 1
© 2016 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/cjcs.8.1.143_1

Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

Universitat Rovira i Virgili

Simulating history in
contemporary board games:
The case of the Spanish Civil
War

Abstract Keywords
This article examines the structure of simulation of two recently published analogic board games
war games on the Spanish Civil War in order to analyse the ways in which they Game Studies
represent the history of the Spanish conflict. The study places the board games as simulation history
an object of analysis within the field of Game Studies and then undertakes a ludology
search of which elements used in the study of video games can be used to approach
the analysis of historical board games. The analysis of the ludic structure of these
games shows a Civil War initially focused on the chaos on the Republican side,
followed by the progression towards the professionalization and militarization of
the conflict as the only path to victory. The study shows that the elements of the
ludic macrostructure become the means used by the game to delimit the simulation
of history, before going on to reflect on the theoretical and cultural implications of
this condition.

143
Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

Playing with history: Board and video games

The main objective of this article is to determine which elements of ludic
simulation used in the study of video games can be used to approach the
analysis of historical board games. These elements are then used to study
the construction of the story in two board games on the Spanish Civil War.
Before proceeding, it is necessary to refer to the debate over the suitability of
games as a representation of history. A discussion that stems from video game
research is, in effect, being applied to the analysis of analogue games. On the
one hand, the polemical nature of this transference deals with the rigour of
the games’ data, while on the other hand we must ask how the specific char-
acteristics of video games as a media form affect the representation of history.
The real, underlying question is ‘Is the computer game thus an inappropriate
platform for the representation of history?’ (Uricchio 2005: 327).
Some authors consider that video games are fragmented historical events
that emphasize only some aspects of their subject, thus providing a partial and
determinist simulation: ‘Strategy games emphasize a teleology of develop-
ment whereby the player wins or loses depending on the outcome of various
decisions relating to technology, economy and military strength’ (de Groot
2009: 141). However, a debate based on these terms oversimplifies a complex
subject that in reality warrants a multidimensional approach. To begin with, the
debate is rooted in a deeper dilemma about what we consider history to be.
Indeed, several authors believe that games are a useful means of transcending
traditional analytic history, which is based on the assumption that history is a
completely objective study centred around a chronicle of events, and that a
better approach would be to move towards a post-structuralist history (Uricchio
2005: 329) or a counterfactual history (Elliot and Kapell 2013; Sabin 2014). From
this second point of view, games turn history into a dynamic and interactive
process where the player chooses sides. In games, history can be played and
truly becomes ‘history in action’ (Roy 2014).
On the other hand, the criticism of such games recalls the disapproval
towards other communication media such as radio, cinema and television, in
that we observe the same pattern of distrust every time a new form of media
or technology emerges. Often, blame is placed on the totality of the media
as such and not on other ancillary aspects (Schut 2007). In relation to games
that use history, the problem lies in the breadth of their offer, from those
games where history is only a pretext to provide a context for the action, to
those that aim to simulate one event as precisely as possible. Indeed, some
games are explicitly created to simulate a period or event, be it from a military,
economic, cultural, social or political perspective, or any combination of these
elements. Additionally, in all games a clear tension is found between playabil-
ity, commerciality and the re-creation of historical events.
With that in mind and paraphrasing Frasca (2003) it is essential to take
into account the particular characteristics of the games as simulators, in order
to understand how they approach history. In reality, games should not be
considered more or less valid than literature, cinema or television for simu-
lating history, because they are just a different form of media that present a
greater range of possibilities. Nonetheless, we must take into considera-
tion the fact that choices are made during the creative process between the
various elements of the simulation. These choices will eventually present
a historical event from a particular point of view (i.e., emphasizing some
events and characters and excluding others) and from a specific perspective

144
 Simulating history in contemporary board games

(military, economic, political) that will necessarily affect the construction of

the event. Every simulation game is biased – that is, it is based on an ideo-
logical construct that can be analysed (Cassar 2013). However, this does not
invalidate the game as a form of media, since in fact all historical representa-
tions are a process of selection and assembly. The major difference is that the
games use their potential to actively involucrate the players in the construc-
tion of meaning and in the understanding of the historical event (Elliot and
Kapell 2013: 13).
Several studies show the ideological bias of some video games. For
instance, the textual analysis of Civilization IV by Oliva et al. (2009) shows
that the video game represents history as a ‘competition and a race toward
global development and domination’, in addition to representing a western,
evolutionist, utilitarian view of cultural homogenization in the development
of civilizations. However, the authors admit that ‘this article does not try to
demonstrate that the designers of Civilization IV want to persuade anybody
nor that there is any correlation between the game’s view of the world and
that of the player after a game’ (Oliva et al. 2009: 75).
The debate, therefore, is not about the adequacy of games in simulat-
ing history, but about how the ludic construction of history works in each
instance. Consequently, the correct question would be ‘What stories underlie
the simulation history games?’
All in all, this debate reveals the attention that video games have recently
received from studies and academic discussions. As a result of the confluence
of different approaches such as narrative (Aarseth 1997), ludology (Juul 2001,
2003; Frasca 2003), game design (Salen and Zimmerman 2004) and cultural
studies (Jenkins 2006), Games Studies has emerged as a new discipline with a
theoretical and analytical corpus anchored in a communicative approach to
the world of video games (Ramos and Pérez Latorre 2009).
Paradoxically, board games are often the predecessors of video game, since
the bases for the design, mechanics and themes of video games (Deterding
2010) have never before been considered a worthy object of study. We may
speculate that the causes are its ludic/child-like dimension, the lack of asso-
ciated technology or simply that they have never been considered a relevant
form of mass media. Board games have been traditionally studied by histori-
ans and anthropologists (a contemporary example is the journal Board Game
Studies, see de Voogt 1998) and for their educational applications (Huang and
Levinson 2012). Our aim, however, is to introduce board games to the field of
Game Studies and to use the theoretical frameworks created for video games
to analyse them. Indeed, some initiatives, such as the journal Analog Games
Studies, already defend the study of analogue games because of their histori-
cal influence, the momentum they have experienced these past decades, the
hybridization between platforms and, above all, the long-lasting impact of
board games on the video games industry (Trammel et al. 2014).
Furthermore, when we consider games as an artefact, video games and
board games share several characteristics. After analysing the classic defini-
tions of the concept game, Juul explains that what defines them is not the game
medium (the set of materials) but their intangible characteristics:

What is common, however, is a specific sort of immaterial support,

namely the upholding of the rules, the determination of what moves and
actions are permissible and what they will lead to. This can conveniently

145
Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

be described as computation, which is in actuality provided by human

beings (in board games or card games), computers, or physical laws (in
sports).
(Juul 2003: 41)

In addition, analogue and digital games become important as objects of study

because ‘the question is not anymore which role (video) games have in our
culture; the question is that our culture, in a broad sense, has become ludic.
Ludicity has become an essential cultural filter in our way of approaching
reality […]’ (Pérez Latorre 2013: 243). In short, games are artefacts that must
be studied in order to understand who we are. Indeed, since the 1980s board
games have been experiencing a resurgence that started with the eurogames
(the best known are Settlers of Catan and Carcassone), which generated an
exponential increase in the number of players, titles, subjects and mechanics.
And just when everybody thought that screens would substitute them, boards
are experiencing an upward trend in demand.
In addition, some authors consider that video games are indebted to board
games in aspects related to design, mechanics, gameplay and fan appropria-
tion. The concept remediation used by Deterding (2010) refers to the transfer
of formats of the preceding technology to the new one. In this case, many
aspects of board games were transferred to video games. Interestingly, we are
now experiencing a comeback process based on hybridization. Board games
are adapting to new technologies through digital applications for mobile
phones and tablets; indeed, the successful digital adaptations of a large
number of board games open new possibilities and dimensions of analysis
(Rubio 2013).
Moreover, we have to take into account that board games participate in
transmedia storytelling (Scolari 2013), defined as the flow of contents through
different channels. The games become a method that can complement others
in the construction of narrative worlds. Each method contributes its charac-
teristics to the process. Naturally, this transmedia narrative also takes place
between video games and analogue games. Indeed, some video games have
widened the narrative world of board games and vice versa. This has not
taken place through adaptations but through new artefacts able to broaden
the narrative universe, even including the participation of consumers (Scolari
2013: 25).
Lastly and possibly the most relevant element of all, from chess to modern
war games, an undercurrent of tradition exists in board games for historical
simulation. In such games history is not simply the setting but a main char-
acter in its own right. Planells (2014: 119) explains that ‘fictional evocation in
thematic board games is not a mere narrative decoration within a dominant
system of rules, it is an entity with its own value’. In conclusion, board games
emerge as an object of study to consider within Games Studies. In addition, the
analysis of the construction of the historical narrative in games that aim not
only to entertain but also to explain history seems fully warranted.

Simulating history with board games

Simulation is a concept that needs explaining, in order to avoid confusion.
First, the concept simulation is not exclusively used for games and it usually
relates to the representation of the behaviour of a system or reality with the
highest possible rigour:

146
 Simulating history in contemporary board games

The intention, despite all obvious limitations, aims to reproduce the

setting or conditions of a specific human phenomenon in time and
space. The simulator is therefore a sort of social laboratory that aims
to reproduce the conditions and situations that influence the object of
study.
(Hernández Cardona 2001)

However, games that aim to simulate a form of reality share some character-
istics that set them apart from the strict concept of simulation. In the analysis
of military simulation games, Sabin (2014: 4) asserts that they are a combina-
tion of ‘a mathematical model of reality and active decision inputs by one or
more players’. Similarly, ludology uses the concept of simulation as opposed to
narrative. Authors such as Juul (2001) and Frasca (2003) consider that games
have a semiotic structure that is different from those of other cultural artefacts,
where simulation becomes a rhetorical strategy used to understand the ideol-
ogy within a game: ‘Simulation provides us with a rhetorical tool for under-
standing the big picture’ (Frasca 2003: 228). The structure of games differs
significantly from that of classic storytelling. Frasca (2003) considers that
‘traditional media are representational, not simulational’, reproducing reality
through descriptions and a structured sequence of events. In contrast, games
go beyond simple representation when they become a structure that must
abide by the following principles: they must allow variations in the model they
reproduce; they must be regulated; the final result must be uncertain; players
must be allowed to intervene in and influence the events; and a certain degree
of fate must exist.
Consequently, in contrast with other cultural artefacts and professional
and scientific simulations, the distinctive element in simulation games is its
ludicity. The game author will decide to which extent all these characteristics
exist. For instance, he or she can decide to which extent he or she forfeits the
course of events to the players:

[…] the agency granted to the player, together with the game mechanic
that privileges a successful expansion, inculcates in the player a deep
understanding of the number of possible alternatives that any given
historical event might have resulted in […].
(Elliott and Kapell 2013: 14)

In contrast with other cultural artefacts, for which success depends mainly on
the exactitude of representation of the system and its commercial dimension,
we need to add a third factor in the case of simulation games – playability,
a combination of entertainment and the capacity of players to intervene in
the development and outcome of the game. However, there is a clear tension
between the levels of representation and playability. Simulation games cannot
be an exact reproduction of the system they represent because they would
cease to be a game, becoming instead a strict simulation without its ludic
dimension. In the case of historical games, they would be a simple repeti-
tion of historical events. On the other hand, they cannot be solely a system of
mechanics that do not reproduce any significant aspect of the event. According
to Sabin (2014: 19), in this dilemma the balance depends on the expectations
of both editors and customers.
It is important to understand the elements that impact the construction
of the simulated event in the case of those games that venture beyond the

147
Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

simple historical make-up of their mechanics and that attempt to simulate

real historical situations and events.
Based on simulation as a factor in the construction of meaning, we can
investigate further the essential elements for simulation analysis. Frasca (2003:
232) believes that in simulations there are four ideological levels that the
designers can use to transmit a specific ideology. The first level is the visual; it
focuses on the representations and the events and is shared between simula-
tion and narrative. The second level relates to the manipulation rules: ‘what the
player is able to do within the model’. The rules can sometimes be necessary
to achieve a certain objective, while at other times they open different possi-
bilities. The third level is that of goal rules: ‘What the player must do in order to
win. It deals with what the author states as mandatory within the simulation’.
The fourth level refers to meta-rules, which enable the players to modify the
previous three levels.
Ludic simulation as a form of representation within games (Ruiz Collantes
2013) aims to relive the events that replicate, and thus all of the ludic world is
anchored in a real world of reference, from which it borrows several aspects. The
universe of the game is created through the combination of pieces taken from
the world of reference, creating a close but not an identical image of this world.
In short, all simulations are construction processes, and under the whole appa-
ratus that supports the simulation system we always find a particular represen-
tation of a certain event. From this perspective we can understand the concept
of the possible world (Eco 1993), which can be shaped partially by the inter-
vention of the players. It is what Planells (2015: 96–97) defines as the ludofic-
tional world: ‘a system of concatenated possible worlds that generate a space of
game determined by fictional contents plus some closely related rules’ situated
between the game design (the act of choosing what stays inside and what stays
outside the possible world) and the Gameplay (the dynamics that emerge from
the relationship between the rules of the game and the recreated world).
Thus, although the gaming experience and the active participation of play-
ers are both crucial in the study of games and have been analysed from the
study of certain aspects of gameplay and play (the cultural practices associated
with the game), there is a prior level of meaning anchored in game design
that ensures that the game is not absolutely random and free. Designing a
historical simulation game necessarily involves establishing certain limits
related to the way in which we want to represent the reference world. Another
way of putting it is that from a macrostructural level the limits of the ludofic-
tional world are defined by the actual, the possible and the necessary (Planells
2015: 120). Actual here means the particular characteristics of the possible
world in which we are at one point in the game. These actual elements are,
among others, ‘characters, places and specific characteristics of that world’
(Mangieri 2011) that identify the possible world and can be modified or not by
the mechanics or rules. In the case of not being open to modification, these
elements are closer to representation than to simulation, and in the case of a
historical game they are necessary to create the context.
Possible and necessary represent what can or has to be done in the actual
world proposed by the game, but also what allows us to modify or reverse the
characteristics of that world or to make a transition to another possible world
that offers us the game. Planells (2015) links the possible and the necessary
with Frasca’s manipulation rules and goal rules, respectively. Thus, the charac-
teristics of ludofictional worlds are necessarily linked to the rules of the game.
For example, the counters of one player can fly only if they are stacked exactly

148
 Simulating history in contemporary board games

in a hex where there is an airfield. This is a rule and, at the same time, a
feature of one possible ludic world.
Rules are a necessary element in any game and they apply only to that
particular context. In addition, they contribute meaning by circumscribing
‘limitations, obligations and possibilities’ (Oliva et al. 2009: 63). Salen and
Zimmerman (2004) explain that, while rules limit the players’ actions, they
also provide formal meaning to the game. But, in addition, the rules deter-
mine to which extent the players intervene in the transformation of the narra-
tive contained within the game. Indeed, rules delimit the players’ actions
while defining the borders of the possible world that the game develops. In that
sense it is important to take into account the classification of rules proposed
by Pérez Latorre (2012). This author argues that state rules and action/transfor-
mation rules fulfil the basic function of providing coherence and significance to
the gameplay at a microstructural level.
In board games rules are more important than in video games since the
players need to know them to be able to play. In contrast, in video games
we observe the Black Box effect (Deterding 2010: 34) – i.e., the invisibility of
some rules and mechanics within the formal structure of the video game.
In the case of board games, rules are totally explicit and every player must
know them in order to play and give meaning to his or her actions: ‘Manual
wargames, by contrast, require all users to understand and apply the designer’s
system for themselves if the game is not to remain an inanimate pile of paper
and card’ (Sabin 2014: 26). Consequently, the influence of rules in the possible
actions of players is much more significant in board games since players must
know them and will have to abide by them, as well as to take advantage of the
options they offer. Nevertheless, the rules determine how to play, but not how
the players will play (Rollings and Morris 2003: 21).
Within the goal rules or what’s necessary we have the conditions for victory
or defeat. In a historical simulation, the conditions of victory become partic-
ularly important since, in addition to driving the action of the players and
thereby giving meaning to their decisions, they resolve the tension between a
strict re-creation of reality and the concept of playing. For instance, a victory
that is not solely based on a historical outcome enhances the ludic dimension
of the simulation (Sabin 2014: 123). Consequently, these conditions of victory
are among the most relevant aspects in the analysis of the type of ludofictional
world constructed by simulation.
Accordingly, these levels shared by board games and video games become
not only the guidelines to the running of the game but also determine the
limits of the possible world that the game constructs. In fact, we can use them
to analyse the underlying and ideological structure that the simulation devel-
ops at a textual level. With the structure of the simulation we can analyse
what is possible within the game and which direction the player’s actions
should take. Indeed, while the simulation constricts the player’s actions, it
also defines the framework where these actions acquire meaning. Therefore,
the analysis of the elements that shape the ludic simulation provides the clue
to the historical construction provided by the game.

Case study: Simulating the Spanish Civil War in board

games
Our objects of analysis will be strategy board games, war games and games of
historical simulations. War games are the most representative within games of

149
Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

historical simulation because of their particular history and their special focus
on simulating historical events (Uricchio 2005; Deterding 2010; Sabin 2014).
As Dunningan explains (quoted in Deterding 2010; Sabin 2014), ‘A wargame
is, after all, a historical account of an event in simulation form’. More specifi-
cally, we will analyse two war games created by Spanish designers that have
been recently published by two American companies that specialize in war
games and games of historic simulation. The games are The Spanish Civil
War 1936–1939 (TSCW) designed by Javier Romero and published by GMT
Games in 2010 (Romero 2010) and Crusade and Revolution: The Spanish Civil
War, 1936–1939 (C&R), designed by David Gómez Relloso and published
by Compass Games in 2013 (Gómez Relloso 2013): this product is based on
World War I game Paths of Glory, published in 1999.
Assuming that the digital Game Studies concept of ludofictional world
(Planells 2015) may be useful in order to study the narrative construction
of analogue simulation games, we propose an analysis of the limits and
options that the ludic structure creates when it comes to the construction of
the Spanish Civil war as a ‘possible world’. In our analysis, we assume that
the games of historical simulation can be considered as a text, where ludic
elements, especially rules, construct meaning about the event they repre-
sent before the players begin to use them. Through the combination of these
elements, the game, as a form of text, favours specific interpretations.
To detect this macrostructural meaning, we have analysed the state rules,
the operational and manipulation rules, the transformation rules and the
goal rules (Frasca 2003; Salen and Zimmerman 2004; Pérez Latorre 2012).
These rules are used to simulate the possible world of the Spanish Civil War
and allow changes to be made to its initial traits, or to make a transition to
another possible world (if available). After discarding those generic opera-
tional rules common to any war game, which do not have a specific meaning,
we will consider those concrete rules of the games that meet the following
requirements:

1. They are designed to define the limits of the actual possible world located
at the starting point of the game and are connected with the real referen-
tial world (e.g. both sides begin the war divided into two fronts).
2. They serve to transform the characteristics of the initial possible world and
improve or worsen the prospects of victory for one side or the other (e.g. if
the nationalist player unifies his or her fronts and thus removes the attack
penalty from his troops).
3. They encourage or discourage certain actions in the game (e.g. it penalizes
players who do not attack Madrid during the first turns of the game).
4. They are necessary to advance to a possible world where one side
triumphs (e.g. capturing Madrid within turns 1 to 6 produces an automatic
Nationalist victory).

To assess the influence of these rules, they are classified according to follow-
ing six aspects: 1) what specific aspect of the Civil War they want to simulate,
2) whether they are possible/necessary, 3) whether they are categorical/tran-
sient, 4) whether they are favourable or unfavourable to one side, 5) whether
there is a way to reverse them (if possible) and 6) which new characteristics
or new possible world they may open. Data collection has consisted of the
systematic classification of the rules or mechanics created to represent some
significant event of the Civil War and of the objectives classified within

150
 Simulating history in contemporary board games

the categories of victory or defeat. All these data have been obtained from
instruction booklets, the books accompanying the game, and other materials
such as strategic cards and markers of events.
All these data are the limits that define the ludofictional world of the play-
ers. A qualitative analysis of the set of rules or winning strategies linked to the
same aspect of the Civil War follows, in order to detect the deeper meaning
that arises from the simulation of this event. We have placed special emphasis
on the goal rules since they restrict or drive (when reversible) the action of the
players and thus are ultimately the real guidelines to how the Civil War will
unfold within the possible world constructed by the game.

Results
If we focus on the mechanics (Sicart 2008), both examples studied here are
war games divided in turns that represent a gap of time: both function under
the i-go-you-go system (IGOUGO, where the players take alternate turns).
The principal elements of the game are the different combat units (counters)
represented in terms of size (column, brigade or division), type (infantry,
cavalry or armour), combat factor and movement factor, and the map repre-
senting the Iberian Peninsula. The main mechanics that make the game work
are the movement of the counters on the board, the combat simulations
governed by chance (roll of the dice) and the generation of historical events
that influence the progression of the game. However, we should underscore
some differences in the mechanics of the two games: the movement in TSCW
is hex-and-counter and in C&R is point-to-point, which implies differences
in the board design. In the TSCW the board is a hexagonal network with
landforms, villages, towns, roads and railways. The markers can move in any
of the six directions of the hexagon. In the C&R the relevant elements of the
terrain are represented by dots connected with lines and the markers can
move only if there is a prior connection between those spaces.
The main mechanics are also different in these two games. In TSCW the
players are allowed, in turns, to move any marker that they have on the board
and to carry out any combats they want; the only restrictions would be the
strategy of the player and the situation of the game. In contrast, in C&R the
players draw at the beginning of their turn a number of strategic cards that
become the motor of the game. Each card can be used for different actions
(move and/or combat, strategic redeployment, replacement points or event).
Only one card can be used at a time, thus widening the strategic possibilities
of the game. The player decides the order and how he or she will play his or
her cards to respond to the strategic challenges of the game. The diverse use
of the cards, based on the progression of the game, will determine a different
game each time.
The third difference emerges from this mechanics – i.e., how the events
are introduced in the game. In TSCW we find a chit-pull from where players
draw randomly at the beginning of the turn, a chit event that must be solved if
it is an immediate event (Immediate Commitment). Otherwise, the player can
keep it to play it when most convenient (Delayed Commitment). In contrast,
in C&R the players decide how they play their card and thus the events will
take place only if the player so chooses. However, due to the flowchart struc-
ture of many of these events the player needs to play some events at specific
times to be able to access the next available events (thus limiting his or her
options of victory). In addition, some events are mandatory and must be played

151
Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

as stated when the player holds that card in his or her hand. In conclusion, all
these events become a part of the narrative development of the simulation of
the games. Indeed, they become the elements that ultimately explain what is
happening and in which scenario.
Beyond the mechanics, and after analysing the rules of both games, we can
state that they share a similar construction of certain aspects of the Spanish
Civil War that we can summarize as follows:

1. The three phases of the war

Both games simulate the Civil War as a progressive effort of organization and
professionalization of both sides of the conflict. This process can be divided
into three phases. Most rules analysed simulate some progress in the conflict
towards the reorganization of the combat units of both sides, after the initial
months of the war, through necessary and categorical transformation rules.
The biggest transformation takes place between the first (war of columns) and
second phases. In the first turns of the game the markers represent columns:
small units poorly organized constituted by a ‘mix of troops, political party
militias, police and volunteers’ (Romero 2010: 4) with an important number
of restrictions, particularly on the Republican side. The reorganization trans-
forms these forces into units that are better structured within a more cohesive
military command.
For the Republican side, the process of reorganization represents the
emergence of the Popular Army of the Republic, after a period dominated by a
militia that is enthusiastic but poorly trained and lacking in logistical support.
With the change in phase, the National Army, with a better military organiza-
tion from the onset, will reform and improve certain units:

Represent the conversion of early war columns (formed by individual

battalions and/or political militias, with little or no support and logis-
tics units) into regular brigades and divisions. This represents also the
reforming or upgrade or certain units.
(Romero 2010: 9)

In both games better combat units can be put to use in the second phase of
the war. Consequently, the end of the war of columns is considered a positive
step since it improves the combat capacity and organization of both armies. In
addition, for the Republicans it signals the end of some restrictions associated
with the simulation of its internal divisions and the disorganization linked
to political columns acting as combat units. For instance, the emergence of
the Popular Army troops cancels the Republican Militias’ Lack of Coordination
and the Catalonian militias in C&R and decreases the impact of the Republican
Columns in TSCW. The general idea is that the phases of the Civil War are not
only used to organize the historical development of the conflict but also to
improve the chances of both sides of winning. As a result, a narrative of the
conflict is constructed based on a necessary reorganization around a unique
command and the disappearance of the initial shortcomings. The concept of
the Spanish Civil War as a long-term conflict is also constructed at this point.

2. Lack of Republican coordination

The rules of the games analysed emphasize in particular the initial chaos of
the Republican army in contrast with the professionalization of the National

152
 Simulating history in contemporary board games

army. This is the aspect that entails more specific rules. The initial Republican
columns represent anarchist, Basque and Catalan Nationalists, POUM and
Communist parties. Rules such as Political Allegiance of TSCW and Republican
Militias’ Lack of Coordination and Catalonian Militias in C&R limit the collabo-
ration between these troops, highlighting the lack of a common strategy and,
above all, the ideological division.
TSCW represents the alleged chaos of the Republican military with the
Mandatory offensives. When the Republican player draws one of these events
he or she must allocate troops for these offensives, representing the lack of
coordination in the general strategy of the Republicans. Another aspect simu-
lated in both games is the lack of training and quality in some Republican
troops. This aspect is mainly simulated by means of incurring penalties to
throwing the dice for attacks by the Republican columns, or, in the case of the
rule Republican Columns of TSCW, throwing the dice can even be the cause of
the event not taking place.
It is important to point out that, even though the Nationalist troops are
constituted not only by professional troops but also by the colonial army, a body
of volunteers and political forces (Falangists and Carlists), this aspect does not
affect them. On the contrary, they start with some advantages represented by the
attack bonuses of the colonial troops. Consequently, the advance of the phases
of the war for the National troops does not imply that they have to overcome
certain restrictions. Instead, they just need to improve their initial victory options.
The underlying thesis is that the Republican columns that stood out at the start
of the conflict burn out their strategic potential mainly because of political divi-
sion and coordination difficulties. In contrast, the limitations of the National army
are based principally on the lack of military training and equipment to sustain
a long-term war. The set of rules eventually influences the progression of the
phases of war as the only course of action to advance and win the game.

3. The two fronts

The initial deployment of the game mirrors the historical territorial division
of troops on each side. The Republicans dominated the provinces of Asturias,
Santander and the Basque Country in the north plus the territories of the
Republican South. The Nationals controlled a swathe of northern territory from
La Coruña to Zaragoza (divided by the Republican territories in the centre), a
part of Andalucía in the south and also the colonial territories in the north of
Morocco. Both games have a set of rules that incorporate the strategic mean-
ing of these divisions and that force the players to try to revert the situation. It
is yet another example of the organizational difficulties of the Republic.
Nationalist Ammo Shortage is a rule that simulates the lack of resources
of the northern National territory. The National troops in the northern front
suffer penalties for attacking, until both National territories are unified.
Consequently, an objective that does not directly lead to victory but that
improves the Nationals’ position is the unification of the north with the south.
The Republican division is more significant because it simulates yet another
disagreement faced by the Republican side: ‘The Republicans and Northern
Republican forces should be viewed as completely separate entities’ (Romero
2010: 10). In both games the northern Republican area functions as three
independent territories, each with its own set of rules that cannot be altered
and which are characterized as lack of cooperation between the different
elements of the Republican forces.

153
Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

Indeed, if for the Nationals the unification of their territories improves their
options, for the Republicans the north is another example of the simulation of
an organizational complexity that hampers their possibilities. All in all, the
Republican side is presented as a force inescapably divided and with little
chance of overcoming their internal disagreements.

4. To resist is to win!
In both games the military initiative seems to be led by the Francoist player:

The Nationalist Player has qualitative superiority and must adopt an

aggressive approach - attacking incessantly to break Republican morale
in a race against the clock. […] The Republican Player must try to contain
the enemy and launch counteroffensives to stop his advance.
(Gómez Relloso 2013: 3)

The overall concept is that the Republic wins mainly through resistance or
by hindering the advance of the enemy. The Republican offensives are more
devised to maintain morale than to achieve real strategic and territorial objec-
tives. The idea of resistance is reinforced in both games with the rules that acti-
vate the historical fortifications used by the Republicans to stop the National
offensives towards Bilbao, Valencia and Catalonia. The opposite narrative
maintains that the National player must sustain the pace of the offensive to
avoid forfeiting victory to the Republican player. Interestingly, TSCW incor-
porates the possibility of a Republican victory based on the capture of four
provincial capitals initially controlled by the Nationals. This is worth taking
into account because even when the general analysis of the rules constructs a
narrative where the Republic must resist to win, the player is offered an alter-
native strategy to achieve victory.

5. The political objectives

The military capture of some objectives considered more political than stra-
tegic determines the advance of the National army during the first months
of the war. Indeed, this is the last element of the simulation that we want to
highlight. The general conception is that the National player must obey the
interests of the Francoist propaganda centred on the capture of Madrid and
the relief of some enclaves such as the Alcázar de Toledo, Oviedo or Santa
María de la Cabeza, which had become almost mythical, before moving to
other war fronts. These rules are quite restrictive for players when they have
to plan their offensives. Instead, they must abide by the requirements of an
invisible command.
Both games generate mechanics that encourage the National player
to allocate his or her resources to achieve these objectives or they penalize
the players if they do not do so, be it by choice or because the Republican
player has hindered his or her efforts. The main objective is the capture of
Madrid. During the initial months of the Spanish Civil War the Nationalist
side focused on taking the capital with the aim to exemplify the fall of the
Republican government. The simulation of both games focuses on this initial
goal, one that would eventually become a major symbol in the conflict.
The capture of Madrid is not a mandatory rule and each game presents
it differently. In the TSCW, a rule encourages it by providing a sudden
victory if Madrid falls to the Nationalists between turns 1 (July 1936) and

154
 Simulating history in contemporary board games

6 (January–February 1937). If the capture takes place in ulterior turns the

game does not finish immediately, but the Republican morale decreases
significantly. In contrast, in C&R it is simulated with a penalty of victory
points for the Nationalist side applied in correlation with the effort made by
the player to capture the city.
Similar mechanics have been generated to ‘force’ the National player to
allocate a part of his or her resources to relieve the besieged garrisons in the
Alcázar de Toledo, Oviedo or the Sanctuary of Santa María de la Cabeza.
In short, the objective is to indicate to the players that they should follow a
specific path during their first turns in the game.

Conclusions
This study belongs to the body of literature that analyses the construction of
the narrative contained within games, in particular within board games. We
have shown that the theory and methodology of Games Studies can also be
used to analyse board games. We have used the analysis of analogue games
as a ludofictional world made up of the elements of ludic simulation. The
study shows that two contemporary board games have a ludofictional world
with very strict rules, which aim to justify a high level of historical represen-
tation and decrease the players’ capacity for significant decision-making that
would modify the limits of the possible world.
In summary, even though both sides can win the game and therefore
modify history in case of a Republican victory, the structure of the game delim-
its these possibilities. Indeed, it is easier in these games to change the final
outcome of the war (what happened) than it is to find ways to achieve that
result (how it happened). The main narrative shows a Republic with severe
problems of internal division and lack of coordination that pushes the player
towards the reorganization of the Popular Army as the only possible way of
defeating the enemy. And while the National side takes the initiative, it must
initially focus on political objectives over and above the military goals, and
must eventually also restructure its forces in order to achieve victory. In the
game, this is illustrated by the categorical rules that restrict the players’ actions
(particularly the Republican players), and the lifting of these rules in the more
advanced phases of the war.
We should emphasize that this assessment is not meant as a criticism,
since the explicit intention of the designers of these two games was precisely
to highlight these issues. However, it brings into question the extent to which
the game experience generates a sense of freedom in the players. On the other
hand, and to break through the rigidity of the simulation, both games offer
an alternative set of rules (What if?) that should be analysed in depth to see
which other simulation paths they offer. Also, some aspects of these games
would require further study – for instance, how the design of the different
mechanics on which they are based (in particular the Card Driven of C&R)
influence their gameplay.
We could also question the intentionality of these specific constructions
of the Spanish Civil War. The rule booklets and the game books contain some
clues about the vision of the authors, but this aspect could be further inves-
tigated by means of direct interviews with the designers: we could ask, for
instance, to what extent the rules and mechanics intend to simulate an event
or whether they offer balanced mechanics that give options to both sides.
Another topic of study would be the direct game experience of the players.

155
Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

Which narrative of the Civil War emerges from the experience of dealing with
the games’ rules and from overcoming the challenges that these rules pose? It
is interesting to note that the whole structure of rules, mechanics and objec-
tives can be dismantled by skilful players able to foresee their options, thus
deconstructing the narrative built by the game contents, ultimately to gener-
ate a different history. Indeed, this is what most players aim for. The vision of
the players and their different approaches to the game refer to a particular
aspect of the world of games that should in reality be a field of study in its
own right.
Finally, we have analysed board games to claim their place as artefacts
that warrant study. Further studies should address the differences between
analogue and digital simulation of the Spanish Civil War by comparing our
games with video games currently found in the marketplace. It would also
be necessary to undertake a deeper study of the specific methodologies that
allow the study of analogue games.
Beyond the specific aspects of games as cultural artefacts, the implications
of games on the recovery of memory need to be taken into account. There
are many challenging questions on the specific possibilities that games offer
to the workings of memory. Besides the predetermination of some (though
not many) narratives about History in the game design, it is undeniable that
games promote debate about the interpretation of the past. Predetermination
contrasts the equidistance claimed by the ludic simulation – within a genre
of games, which define themselves as serious and based on documentation –
which constitutes at the same time both a problem and an opportunity to
break with the ‘official history’ and create new ways of approaching trauma.
There is a whole area of analysis on how games, digital or analogue, can
serve as a reflexive tool to dispute the rigidity of institutional history and to
recover partial, alternative and personal memories. This is especially relevant
in national contexts, as in the case of Spain, where there is a strong social
claim to uncover long-standing historical offences.

References
Aarseth, E. (1997), Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Cassar, R. (2013), ‘Gramsci and games’, Games and Culture, 8: 5, pp. 330–53.
de Groot, J. (2009), Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary
Popular Culture, London: Routledge.
Deterding, S. (2010), ‘Living room wars remediation, board games, and the
early history of video wargaming’, in N. Hunteman and M. Payne (eds),
Joystick Soldiers. The Politics of Play in Military Video Games, London:
Routledge, pp. 21–38.
de Voogt, A. (1998), ‘Editorial’, Board Games Studies. InterNational Journal for
the Study of Board Games, 1: 6, http://ex.ludicum.org/publicacoes/bgsj/1.
Accessed 2 November 2015.
Eco, U. (1993), Lector in Fabula, Barcelona: Lumen.
Elliott, A. and Kapell, M. (2013), ‘Introduction: To build a past that will “Stand
the Test of Time” – discovering historical facts, assembling historical narra-
tives’, in M. W. Kapell and A. Elliott (eds), Playing with the Past: Digital
Games and the Simulation of History, New York: Bloomsbury Academic,
pp. 1–29.

156
 Simulating history in contemporary board games

Frasca, G. (2003), ‘Simulation versus narrative: Introduction to Ludology’, in

M. Wolf and B. Perron (eds), The Video Game Theory Reader, Routledge:
New York, pp. 221–35.
Gómez Relloso, D. (2013), Crusade and Revolution: The Spanish Civil War, 1936–
1939, Cromwell: Compass Games.
Hernández Cardona, F. (2001), ‘Los juegos de simulación y la didáctica de
la historia’, REVISTA ÍBER. Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales, Geografía e
Historia, 30, pp. 23–36.
Huang, A. and Levinson, D. (2012), ‘To game or not to game: Teaching trans-
portation planning with board games’, Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2307, pp. 141–49.
Jenkins, H. (2006), Convergence Culture. La cultura de la convergencia de los
medios de comunicación, Barcelona: Paidós.
Juul, J. (2001), ‘Games telling stories? A brief note on games and narratives’,
Game Studies 1: 1, http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts. Accessed
18 October 2014.
—— (2003), ‘The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of game-
ness’, in M. Copier and J. Raessens (eds), Level Up: Digital Games Research
Conference Proceedings, Utrecht: Utrecht University, http://www.jesperjuul.
net/text/gameplayerworld. Accessed 18 October 2014.
Mangieri, R. (2011), ‘La danza del samurái. Semiótica del video game y de
los entornos virtuales contemporáneos’, Revista Electrónica de Estudios
Filológicos, 21, https://www.um.es/tonosdigital/znum21/secciones/tritonos-
2-samurai.htm. Accessed 24 November 2015.
Oliva, M., Besalú, R. and Ciaurriz, F. (2009), ‘Más grande, más rápido, mejor. La
representación de la Historia universal en Civilization IV’, Comunicación,
7: 1, pp. 62–79.
Pérez Latorre, O. (2012), El lenguaje videolúdico. Análisis de la significación del
videojuego, Barcelona: Laertes.
—— (2013), ‘Apuntes sobre la teoría de la diversión’, in C. Scolari (ed.), Homo
Videoludens 2.0: De Pacman a la gamificacion, Barcelona: Universitat de
Barcelona, pp. 243–71.
Planells, A. (2013), ‘La emergencia de los Game Studies como disciplina propia:
investigando el videojuego desde las metodologías de la Comunicación’,
Historia y Comunicación Social, 18, pp. 519–28.
—— (2014), ‘La ficción analógica del juego de mesa y su relevancia para el
videojuego. Una propuesta educativa para la juventud digital’, Revista de
Estudios de Juventud, 106, pp. 109–21.
—— (2015), Videojuegos y mundos de ficción. De Super Mario a Portal, Madrid:
Editorial Cátedra.
Ramos, M. and Pérez Latorre, O. (2009), ‘Hacia el horizonte comunicativo en
los estudios del videojuego’, Comunicación, 7: 1, pp. 1–5.
Rollings, A. and Morris, D. (2003), Game Architecture and Design, Berkeley: New
Riders.
Romero, J. (2010), The Spanish Civil War, Hanford: GMT Games, LLC.
Roy, G. (2014), ‘Being Historical: How strategy games are changing popular
history’, playthepast, http://www.playthepast.org/?p=4952. Accessed 24
November 2015.
Rubio, X. (2013), ‘El pasado en tu sofá. Juegos de simulación histórica en entor-
nos computacionales portables’, HER&MUS, Heritage & Museography, V:2,
pp. 55–62.

157
Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia

Ruiz Collantes, X. (2013), ‘Juegos y videojuegos. Formas de vivencias narrati-

vas’, in C. Scolari (ed.), Homo Videoludens 2.0: De Pacman a la gamificación,
Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 27–56.
Sabin, P. (2014), Simulating War: Studying Conflict through Simulation Games,
London: Bloomsbury.
Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2004), Rules of Play: Game Designs Fundamentals,
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schut, K. (2007), ‘Strategic simulations and our past: The bias of compu-
ter games in the representation of history’, Games and Culture, 2: 3,
pp. 213–35.
Scolari, C. (2013), Narrativas Transmedia. Cuando todos los medios cuentan,
Barcelona: Deusto.
Sicart, M. (2008), ‘Defining game mechanics’, Game Studies, 8: 2, http://games-
tudies.org/0802/articles/sicart. Accessed 9 February 2016.
Trammel, A., Waldron, E. and Torner, E. (2014), ‘Reinventing Analog Game
Studies’, Analog Game Studies, I: I, http://analoggamestudies.org/2014/08/
reinventing-analog-game-studies/. Accessed 24 November 2015.
Uricchio, W. (2005), ‘Simulation, history, and computer games’, in J. Raessens
and J. Goldstein (eds), Handbook of Computer Game Studies, Cambridge:
MIT Press, pp. 327–38.

Suggested citation
Gonzalo, J. (2016), ‘Simulating history in contemporary board games: The case
of the Spanish Civil War’, Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural
Studies, 8: 1, pp. 143–158, doi: 10.1386/cjcs.8.1.143_1

Contributor details
Juan Luis Gonzalo is a lecturer at the Department of Communication Studies
in Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV). He holds an M.A. in Geography and
History from the University of Lleida (UdL) and an M.A. in Journalism from
the Universitat Rovira i Virgili. His Ph.D. dissertation was focused on risk
communication, and he is the author of several books and articles, among
them being ‘Teoría de la comunicación de riesgo’ (co-authored with Jordi
Farré). He is a member of the Communication Research Group ASTERISC.
Currently he is working in the field of Game Studies, analysing board games
as communicative objects.
Contact: Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Avda Catalunya 35, 43002 Tarragona,
Spain.
E-mail: juanluis.gonzalo@urv.cat

Juan Luis Gonzalo Iglesia has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format
that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

158