Compass Games Learn to Play 08: The Conquistadors (with Jon Southard)

[@gunneykanu]

Thank you so much for the Learn To Play video. I'm hoping to get it to the table at Compass Games Expo. W there is mistake at the beginning of the 2nd Impulse by Andrew. After play of an Indian Ambush Card against Cortes in a Level 3 space 3 Indian units should have been drawn per 4.14.

[@MoesWargames]

You should enjoy your play at Expo!

[@diegoruiz-hernandez273]

Many thanks for the video and the great game. I should admit I am surprised and would like to ask for your sources (notice I am not doubting you). I grew up in Mexico and at school we were taught that it was black powder what made the difference between conquistadors' and indigenous peoples' military strength. Horses also played a roll, but the number of beasts that a ship can carry is always limited. Hearing (and reading in the rulebook) that it was not powder but horsepower, discipline and tactics that made a difference sounds a bit farfetched. Mainly because it seems natural to think that when it comes to iron vs iron, numbers should make a difference. I am really interested in reading about this. Thanks.

[@MoesWargames]

Jon Southard is the designer of the game and did the teach on this. He was unable to respond to your questions so I am going to share his responses to you. Thanks for raising this question. The game rules include a complete bibliography. Of course our knowledge about this period has some severe limits, as I mentioned. On the weapons systems, my main sources were the books of Hugh Thomas and John Hemmning as well as the contemporary account of Pedro de Cieza de Leon. The decisive weapons, according to these sources, were the horses -- few in number, but massively effective -- and the Spanish swords (the basic infantry weapon, and one the native people's shields could not handle). Gunpowder had some morale effect but not nearly as much as the horses (which makes sense, if you consider someone firing a noisy but ineffective weapon at you, versus charging you on an enormous and terrifying beast), and the number of fire weapons was very small. Of course different people may draw different conclusions, but that was my reading. I was surprised to learn this too, as I had been taught (somewhere) the same as what you mentioned. I was also taught in school (in North America, at a very young age) the myth that Columbus "knew the world was round" and had to convince the supposedly ignorant Spanish court that this was so. Which is nonsense: the Spanish king's advisers knew the world was round, they just thought it was much bigger than Columbus believed... and they were correct.

[@diegoruiz-hernandez273]

@@MoesWargames Hi! Many thanks to both for the detailed response. Now that I think, it really makes more sense to think of a minor effect of the fire weapons and a more relevant role of cavalry. Even hundred years later, during the ECW or the 30 years war, the effectiveness of the muskets and other fire arms was still limited. I guess the arquebuses or trebuchets of the early 16th century we mere deterrents. It is always a pleasure to learn something new. And you are right, our education was pack with biased and farfetched interpretations. Today I am having an online play of the game (physical copy, not vassal) with my father (76yo). I will see if I can share some reflections after the game. A pleasure!

[@MoesWargames]

@@diegoruiz-hernandez273 excellent! We hope you enjoy your play of the game with your dad!

[@picton101]

I read this years ago so might be a little off but my understanding was that the absense of native horses inadvertently helped the indigenous populations for a few years from a major military conquest. Europe had designed its road and civil infrastructure with horses and livestock in mind. Therefore European thinking was that any steep areas required leveling or increasing the length/bends of roads to provide a shallow gradient so as not to deplete an animals energy too quickly thus allowing for longer, more sustainable travel. In the Americas they had no such requirements so steep steps were everywhere. The Incas had llamas which are perfectly capable of climbing steep banks, steps, etc. When the Spaniards arrived their horses were pretty useless at using the local infrastructure since it took great effort to move them. Still imposing creatures militarily but impractical in this instance. . Disease was the biggest factor. Due to the nature of the European diseases/immunity much of the indigenous population died out without ever meeting a European. Infected trade goods could reach far off places and by the time the Europeans arrived the locals had vanished. I believe quite early on a Spanish scholar travelled further into Central/South America and wrote an account of how densely populated and culturally vibrant and diverse the regions were but by the time others followed some 30 years later his accounts were said to be fanciful as nothing he wrote about could be found. In the last 50 years this has been revised and some now believe his observations were true and that in those few decades after him small pox and other diseases had swept through those populations and wiped out thousands, meanwhile the jungle plants had reclaimed the land where they'd existed. Judging by how much they're now finding using satellite and lidar data in these areas it seems there were 100s if not 1000s of settlements throughout that quickly died out/migrated and then were smothered by the jungle.

[@diegoruiz-hernandez273]

@@picton101 Interesting point... many thanks!

[@diegoruiz-hernandez273]

Hi again. Why in impulse two, during the ambush, the active player (Andrew) gets to roll before the indians? Would an ambush not confer certain advantage to the attackers? Also, in the first round, when Cortez is attacking, you seem to have forgotten to discount the morale modifier. The modified roll would have been a 9 and therefore only one hit on the indians. In the second round of the combat, Cortez does not roll a die, why is this? With a modifier of three (as you counted), a roll of one would have been a miss, and with a modifier of two (taking into account the morale hit) rolls of 1 and 2 would have also been misses. Finally, I struggle to understand why the cavalry unit that was reduced recovers after the battle. I guess there is an explanation for this in the rules but I have not been able to find it. Thanks!

[@MoesWargames]

And here is Jon's response to this question. The modifier came from one of the cards Andrew played. Ambush is typically played in combination with some other cards (as in the example here) which gives an additional modifier. Good catch on the morale, you are right! Thanks.

[@diegoruiz-hernandez273]

@@MoesWargames Many thanks for the reply. Happy to know I am still a bit sharp when I pay attention... ha! On the other hand, I am still struggling to understand why the active player (defender) fires first during an ambush. I would really appreciate it if you could explain this. D