By the rivers of Paraguay
A review and discussion of educational use of War of the Triple Alliance, designed by Pedro Iñaki Martínez and released by NAC Wargames
Some topics, such as the Napoleonic Wars or the Second World War, are simulated in wargames extremely often, while other conflicts, even those that had far-reaching and long-lasting effects, get way less attention. One such case is the War of the Triple Alliance or the Paraguayan War. It is the largest war in the Latin American history, having lasted six years and leading to huge numbers of casualties, especially on the Paraguayan side. Some estimates suggest that as much as two thirds of the country’s population might have perished as a result of the war.
A (relatively) recent game War of the Triple Alliance designed by Pedro Iñaki Martínez and released by NAC Wargames attempts to model the war with all its twists of fortune. A friend and I played it several times over the last weeks, and I would like to put my impressions here both about the game and its potential educational use.
Flow of the game
The game is a light wargame, using point-to-point movement. One player takes the role of Paraguay, while the other that of the Allies – Argentina and Brazil. The game also includes Uruguay, which is covered by both players to an extent. At the start of the game, Paraguayan players gets to control Uruguay (due to the historical situation), but later on with Montevideo captured by the Allies, the country is taken over and, with some lucky (or good) card selection, Uruguay may provide units to fight against Paraguay. In terms of the political setup, the game covers the situation well, and these shifts are felt by the players.
The outcome of the game is evaluated through victory points. They can be obtained through cards (you get one card at the end of each turn, plus you may get additional cards by conquering enemy territory), conquering enemy spaces, capturing enemy generals, or Paraguayan capitals. The game ends when the cards run out for one of the players, or some automatic victory conditions are triggered.
The games, at least in our case, tended to follow a similar structure. First, the Paraguay player has the initiative, with a drive against ally territories. Yet, with Allies getting more reinforcements they quite quickly put the Paraguayan player on the defense. The key question is if it will be enough or not.
Power of geography
For me, the biggest strength of the game lies in how it depicts geography. As noted, it uses a point-to-point movement approach and does it very skillfully. First, due to how the historical boundaries of the countries are depicted, there are dilemmas for the players on the directions for advancing. Paraguay is about to have direct clashes with the Allies in the South and the North, with Argentinian territory in the West also a potential (even if long-term) threat. Dilemmas regarding the preferred directions are strategic for both players. They can be affected by the available cards, but even with strengthening one of the axes of attack / defense, the choice will not be easy.
Second, in addition to standard ground movement by infantry (two points) or cavalry (three points), troops can move along the main rivers and the coastline, as long as it goes through friendly-controlled territories. This enables players to quickly move large constellations of troops across the map, while also giving the opponent a turn to redirect their troops. You cannot use both river transportation and standard movement in the same turn. In addition to this strategic redeployment, players have opportunities to make ‘cuts’ in the river territories controlled by the opponent, impeding quick reinforcement. This addition to the standard point-to-point movement also strengthens the theme in the game, as river movement played an important role in the war.
Third, over the course of the game, not only the Northern and Southern, but also the Western direction may become a challenge for Paraguay. It is less crucial in the short-term, as the El Chaco region is more difficult to move in with a historically accurate optional rule. All units move only one point per turn and thus Allies take more time to reach the key Paraguayan spaces from the West. In the meantime, if the Allied player breaks through in the South or is given space to maneuver in the North, East may also open, stretching out the Paraguayan army, requiring it to keep defenses across the vast territories. Nonetheless, even in this case, carefully considered movement can slow down the advance of the Allies.
Fourth, the balance in battles also depends on the location. In this case, not on the type of terrain itself, but on the relation between a space and rivers. On the main rivers, the defender has an advantage of shooting first. On the minor rivers, both players roll the battle dice simultaneously. If there are no rivers, the attacker has the advantage. Thus, again, the rivers dictate the flow of the game. Battles are dicey affairs, but for a light wargame, this makes sense. After all, the player has control over the approach used to attack and the quality of troops attacking or defending. These advantages provided by rivers are also shaky. On the one hand, a good first roll may significantly weaken the opponent. On the other hand, a bad roll may obliterate that advantage. It is always a risk. In my view, the key role that positioning in terms of the rivers plays is the retreat – how much you’ll have to take before you can retreat.
These geography-created situations are where the game shines the most. Even with relatively straightforward rules, the considerations and dilemmas faced by the players are plentiful. They also help to highlight the impact that the lands and waters had on the Paraguayan War.
Impacts of the war
Even though the game is not a classical card-driven game, cards play an important role. First, they provide a player with victory points. Second, they have other positive effects, such as getting new units or the enemy getting a cholera outbreak for one of their unit stacks. These effects can be quite powerful. For example, in one game the Paraguayan player defeated my Brazilian forces in Mato Grosso in the North and then moved their troops South to help defend along the Parana River. However, through card play I got some new allied units in Mato Grosso, which created by opponent additional headache, as that side lacked defenses.
The card play simulates most of the non-battle impacts, such as through cholera outbreaks. However, I would have liked to see a bit more of the explorations on the effects that the war had on Paraguay. True, throughout the game, their reinforcement units get weaker and weaker, indicating the weakening situation in the country. Yet, some of the card effects get lost in the game, especially when one player manages to get several enemy spaces with card rewards. The player must then choose which effect will apply, losing other opportunities and other effects of the war. From the game mechanics perspective, it is a very positively interesting decision, as the player can scoop up the points and gets closer to the end of the game but loses some of the special effects that could help them. Thematically, it may be a bit lacking. Yet, it also helps to keep the game light, so I can understand the trade-off.
Overall, the game is very tight. At least in my experience, there were no large differences between the two sides, both players having their own headaches to solve. At least, until I managed to lose a couple of leaders, and that shifted the scales the opposite way… The generals are of key importance, as you cannot attack without them. If you are on the defense (as is Paraguay for a good two-thirds of the game), then you can still manage. But with one or two of the three Allied leaders captured, the player can’t really push properly anymore. So, it is very important to not overstretch. Afterall, the war ended with the Paraguayan general and president Francisco Solano López Carrillo getting shot in 1870. For a light wargame, War of the Triple Alliance does it well. The dilemmas it poses are interesting and thematic, the pacing of the game works well, and it can run in full in just two or two and a half hours.
Teaching with War of the Triple Alliance
I have not used the game in the educational environment at least for now, but here are some ideas on how it could be used in that context.
Teaching about the war. The game can work well as a general introduction to the situation during the Paraguayan War. Of course, it is not a one-to-one retelling of the history, but the overall game flow with its shifting initiative, and the key decisions to be made by the players help understand the history better. Yet, additional discussion with students about the impacts of the war, especially on Paraguay would be beneficial, to give them a broader perspective. This point can also be used to discuss the decisions that a designer must make about the scope and complexity of the game, particularly if the game is intended to be light and focused on military activities.
Geography of in-game models. This is definitely among the key lessons that can be taught using the game. First, of course, it is about the role that geographic features play in military campaigns. However, even more importantly, it can help students to understand modelling geography and how relatively uncomplicated movement rules can significantly affect other parts of the model. This is what I would focus on as the main lesson if I were to use the game in classes.
Suitability for the classroom environment. The game plays relatively quickly and the rules are quite straightforward, so both explanation and a playthrough can fit within the scope of the class (I have two 1.5 hour classes one after the other, totaling 3 hours) and leave some time for discussion. If need be, I would advice stopping the game earlier, once both sides had initiative for several turns (first it will be the Paraguayan side, then the Allies). The lightness of the game means that it can work as an introduction to students to point-to-point counter-based wargames before moving to more complex ones.
Type of classes. I see the use of the game both in wargame design classes and in military or South America history classes. In the first case, the lessons would be mainly about the geography in games and structuring the narrative (i.e. how the initiative shift is modelled). In the second case, the focus could lie on the military campaign processes, exploring the dilemmas faced by both sides of the war.