The Barolo Campaign

I've taken up Bluebear Jeff's challenge, but been Steve the Wargamer has out marched me!  Here's my mini-campaign.

Situation

The fortress town of Montferrat (held by the Electorate) controls a major crossing over the Barolo River.  Montferrat cannot be attacked from the west due to the river frontage, but siege operations can approach from the south once the river is crossed.

The Empire forces represent a covering force with the mission of securing crossing points over the Barolo to the south of Montferrat and defeating the Electorate field army to the east of the river.  This will allow the siege train to safely cross the Barolo and open trenches to take the fortress.  Two crossing points have been selected at San Giorgio and La Morra.  The Electorate forces have taken some steps to prevent the crossing of the Barolo and are moving additional troops into the area.

1)    The Bridge at San Giorgio (Teaser 20 Reserve Demolition)

a)    Orient the map so that the Barolo River flows from the south to the north and Empire (red forces) approach from the west.  The Electorate (blue) forces follow the instructions in the scenario. 

b)   Outcomes:

i)      Empire (red) victory secures the crossing at San Giorgio.  Empire forces detach a garrison to hold San Giorgio and disperse in mop up operations, to attack Castelli di Gabbiano (Game 3) or support the main army at La Morra (Games 6, 7 or 8).  Electorate forces to the east of the Barolo retreat further eastward and regroup and join up with supports.  The reinforced Electorate counter attacks San Giorgio (Game 5).

ii)    Electorate (blue victory) denies the crossing of the Barolo.  The Empire brings up reinforcements and boat and tries again (Game 4)

iii)   Electorate forces stranded west of the Barolo retreat south to the Castelli di Gabbiano.  They can be isolated, but remain a threat to communications and are attacked in Game 3.

2)    Bridgehead at La Morra (Teaser 21 Bridgehead Breakout)

a)    The Map is correctly oriented.  Montferrat lies to the north and San Giorgio to the south.  The river flows northward.

b)   This represents the vanguard of the main Empire (Blue) forces and the main body of Electorate (red) troops in the Barolo region.

c)    Outcomes

i)      An Empire (red) victory results in a successful bridgehead and the retreat of the Electorate forces northwards.  The Empire follows up its success in Game 8.

ii)    An Electorate (blue victory) forces the Empire forces west of the Barolo.  If the Empire has won at San Giorgio (i.e. won Game 4 or 5), they regroup and shift their focus through the South road and move to Game 9.  Otherwise they try again at Falletto (Game 6).

iii)   A draw (the most likely outcome by far) sees the Empire retreat in good order to the prepared position at Fontenorro (Game 7).  However, if the Empire has won Game 9, they outflank the prepared position and move to Game 8.

3)    Castelli di Gabbiano (Teaser 13 Last Stand)

a)    Orient the map so that the Castelli lies on the eastern shore of the Barolo River. 

b)   The red garrison should be made up of the Electorate forces stranded at San Giorgio (if any).  The Empire (blue) forces should include some regiments from the San Giorgio action.

c)    Outcome:  once the garrison is overwhelmed the Empire regiments (less casualties) leave their own garrison and return to San Giorgio.

4)    Assault at San Giorgio (Teaser 19 Assault River Crossing)

a)    Orient the map with the positions X and Y on the eastern shore of the Barolo.  Adjust the terrain so that the village X closely resembles the town of San Giorgio from Game 1.

b)   Electorate (blue forces) at X and Y are fresh regiments, but the reinforcements should include regiments from the action in Game 1.

c)    Empire (red forces) should include regiments engaged in Game 1 plus reinforcements.

d)    Outcomes

i)      An Electorate (blue victory) will result in the termination of the southern attack at San Giorgio.  The opposing forces will result to trading insults across the Barolo and await the results to the north.

ii)    An Empire (red victory) will secure a crossing but allow the Electorate to retire in good order.

5)    Counterattack at San Giorgio (Teaser 16 Reinforcements off the Table)

a)    Orient the map with the point 2 on the eastern shore of the Barolo.  Adjust the terrain and replace the single building at the bridge with the town of San Giorgio from Game 1.

b)   Electorate (red forces) include regiments from the action in Game 1 plus fresh reinforcement

c)    Empire (blue forces) initially on table is composed of the garrison detached at San Giorgio from Game 1.  The blue reinforcements should include regiments in action from Games 1 and 3.

d)    Outcomes

i)      An Electorate (red victory) will result in the termination of the southern thrust.  The empire troops will hold San Giorgio or the west bank of the Barolo depending on the scale of the victory. 

ii)    An Empire (blue victory) will secure the crossing and see the end of serious Electorate resistance in the San Giorgio area.  The Empire moves sends  a column to Segharia (Game 9)

6)    Crossing at Falletto (Teaser 18 River Crossing)

a)    Orient the map with the town of Falletto on the west bank of the Barolo.

b)   The Electorate (red) forces on table at B and the reinforcements from C should come from refinements engaged at La Morra (Game 2).  The reinforcements from C should be refresh regiments.

c)    The Empire (blue) forces should include regiments engaged at La Morra plus fresh reinforcements.

d)    Outcomes

i)      An Electorate (red victory) will result in the termination of the siege campaign.  Having failed to cross twice with the main army, the Empire general should retire on fortifications provided by a bottle of strong Italian red wine!

ii)    An Empire (blue victory) will secure a crossing but allow the Electorate to retire in good order on Fontenoro (Game 7)

7)    Battle at Fontenoro (Teaser 1 Positional Defense)

a)    The map is correctly oriented with a tributary (the Asti) of the Barolo flowing southward.

b)   Electorate (blue) forces include regiments from La Morra (Game 2)

c)    Empire (red) forces also include forces from La Morra.

d)    Outcomes

i)      Electorate (blue) victory or draw halts the empire advance south of Montferrat.

ii)    Empire (red) victory allows for the siege to begin. 

8)    Battle of Montferrat (Teaser 15 Reinforcements on the Table)

a)    Orient the map so that the town (Montferrat) lies on the Northern edge.

b)   Electorate (blue) forces should include regiments engaged at La Morra.

c)    Empire (red) forces also include regiments from La Morra.

d)    Outcomes

i)      Electorate (blue) victory or a draw slows the empire advance south of Montferrat but allows for the siege to begin. 

ii)    Empire (red) victory allows for the siege to begin and catches the garrison at a disadvantage.

9)    Action at Segharia (Teaser 41 Chance Encounter –segharia is Italian for “sawmill” or so says babelfish)

a)    Orient the map 90 degrees clockwise so that the wall runs north-south.

b)   The Empire enters from the Southwest and the Electorate from the Northeast (after rotation)

c)    Empire regiments should come from the troops who originally attacked San Giorgio.  Electorate regiments should include some from San Giorgio plus reinforcements.

d)    Outcomes

i)      An Empire win allows the forces from the southern crossing to move north towards Montferrat. Depending on results at La Morra, move to Fontenorro (Game 7) or Montferrat (Game 8).  In either case, the Empire can draw on all of their regiments to fill their unit rosters for the game 8 or 9.

ii)  An electorate win or a draw halts the southern thrust be leaves the bridgehead securely under Empire control.

Of Ski Hills and Wargames Terrain - Innies and Outies

Ski trips on two successive January 2nds had me thinking about war games terrain!  In 2011 I was skiing at Lake Louise in the Alberta rockies.  

The view from the top of the chair lift at Louise - classic alpine vistas and an avalanche warning on the back face!  The view alone was priceless and the skiing was fantastic.

Taken from the Gondola station at the Louise summit but the weather had clouded over.  I'm pointing at the Chateau Lake Louise hotel (as featured in CPR holiday posted of old and scenic calendars of every era).  The Louise guide posed me before telling me why - and yes she did this about 20 times a day!


In 2012 I went skiing Asissippi in Manitoba - very good and a day trip (3 hours each way) from Regina, but not Louise.  I wish I'd taken a photo of the view from the top of the chair lift - which at one point featured a farm pickup on a gravel road at eye level!  Think about this for a minute.


The realities of skiing on the prairies are that the only slopes available are in river valleys.  Therefore the top of the slope is the surrounding bald prairie land.  Driving up to Asissippi, although we knew we were close, the first real indication that we had arrived was when we saw skiers getting off the chair beside the road.


Okay here's the wargaming connection....what works for skiing works on the wargame table too.  Here's a shot of a Canadian militia column moving west through the Qu'appelle Valley during the 1885 rebellion (taken about 80kms north of my house about 125 years ago).  

How to Hide an Infantry Column 1885

The surrounding terrain at the top of the valley is billiard table smooth grain fields now (grass lands then).  Cue the jokes about seeing your dog  four days after he ran away.  And FYI the trees (bush and scrub really) is concentrated in the valleys too.  And you really can't see the drop into the valley until you're almost on top of it.












Now skim through your CS Grant scenario books (if you read this blog, chances are you own the set).  Look at "Scenario 8 -Dead Ground" in Scenarios for Wargames and "Scenario 8 -Dry River Bed" in Scenarios for All Ages.  The 1885 photo looks about spot on doesn't it?  


The problem is how to model this on the table.  I use a felt cloth with hills placed either on top (if I have enough reasonable looking hills on tap) or under the cloth.  The "drop" requires either a lot of painted hills or a lot of surface tremors when you remove the under the cloth hills!  The best solution I've seen used Geohexes, but that requires deeper pockets and more storage space than I have! 

Span-Am Project Giving the Spanish A Fighting Chance

David Crook's posts about a Balkan War c1900 (over at Wargaming Odyssey) spurred my memory on this back burner project.  Previously I posted some ideas with the Armada making the best of the ships on hand.  Escalating up to the next level, I'll consider some options that the Armada had for building up naval strength through purchase and construction and redeployment.

1. Admiral Camara's squadron - at the same time that Cervera went to the West Indies, Camara was dispatched to the East Indies with the battleship Pelayo and the cruiser Carlos V.   A redeployment to the West Indies was also possible.
2. Italian Garibaldi class cruisers - The Italian firm Ansaldo built 9 sisters to the Cristobal Colon (with some variations in armament) and they served in 4 navies (Italian, Spanish, Argentine and Japanese).  I have found vague references to the Armada buying a sister to the Colon to be named Blas de Leon. 
3. Princese de Asturias class cruisers - this class of 3 cruisers was under construction in Spain in 1898 but took over 10 years to complete.  It's easy to speculate that an spurt of efficiency would have put these in service.
4. Reina Regente class cruisers - another class of 3 ships.  The lead ship was built in the UK, although considered a success she was lost in a storm.  The next 2 were built in Spain and modified with a lighter armament to reduce top weight and improve speed.  The redesign was a complete failure, and they were far to slow for fleet work.  Alphonso XIII was in service but incomplete and left in Europe when Camara served.  Her sister Lepanto was not in service at the time.  Again, we need to speculate better efficiency in administration.  Or we can assume that the Regente didn't sink (and thus there was no need for a rethink on design) and put a class of 3 ships under the original Clydebank design in service, or replace these with 3 Elswick cruisers.  
5. New Orleans class cruisers - The USS New Orleans and USS Albany were purchased on the stocks at Elswick in early 1898.  Originally laid down for Brazil, these were up for grabs and the US bought them to prevent them falling into Spanish hands.  Similar ships were built by the same firm for the Argentine, Chilean, Chinese, and Japanese navies.  It easy to speculate these becoming available through political/financial crises and snapped up by Spain.  These ships were small, but fast and well armed and ideal commerce raiders. 
6. Destroyers - the giant killer of the age, these were easy, cheap and quick to build and could in some cases be bought "off the rack" from Elswick, Thornycroft and Yarrow in the UK as well in France and Germany.  The Armada had torpedo advocates and its easy to speculate that lobbying on their part would have the Armada acquiring some destroyers. 
7. Used battleships - at a slightly later date it become common for first line navies to sell off aging battleships to smaller nations.  One might speculate that the French or Royal navies would be willing to do such a thing in the 1890s.

Ok so what would these give Cervera?  On the surface, he would have a whole lot more of what he already had - armoured cruisers.  Increasing his squadron would not change the result at Santiago, but operating a second squadron in the Antilles would change the scenario in his favour.  The US fleet would need to split it's forces to cover more bases and therefore increase the opportunity for catching a US squadron at a disadvantage.  

A larger destroyer arm would force the US navy to be more defensive in fear of torpedoes.  This would affect not only battles but also the blockades (a night attack by destroyers on blockading squadron would make a great scenario).  

In addition, a few smaller cruisers used in commerce raiding would really change the tone of the war.  Now the US navy would have to really  spread itself thin to protect commerce plus deal with a paranoid populace.  Picture an Elswick cruiser on the Gulf Coast and another on the Eastern Seaboard, and possibly a third off California

Uploaded From the Archives

So I have 3 hours to kill while proctoring a  3rd year class of  actuarial science students while they sweat through my final exam.  I have my Macbook and a wireless Internet connection.  Yes I could do some useful reading, OR I can figure out how to upload and link PDF files to my blog.


Et Voila - complete but upside down.   I'll work our how to save and post these right way up, but for now Non-antipodean readers will have to use the rotate functions in Adobe.
WWI Naval
Napoleonic Naval
I should probably point out the parentage of the WWI rules, which started off as a mix of General Quarters 2 and the rules from Paul Hagues's Sea Battles in Miniatures.  I consider the latter to be a classic and a highly useful addition to any gamer's library (lubbers and seafarers alike).  You have to love an author who refers to one of his gaming personas as the "likely but inept Haguearchus"

Found During Archeological Excavations

With major basement walls renovations looming, we've embarking on a thorough clear out of the basement (the place which non-family members must not enter).  Tucked into my bookcase of wargaming books were found two sets of  naval rules written nearly 20 years ago by yours truly.  


The Napoleonic Rules are best thought of as a work in progress (or as an evolutionary dead end), but the WWI rules gave a good game.  They both incorporate the action system of movement orders discussed in earlier posts.


Now I just have to figure out how to post PDFs on a blogger - another learning opportunity at hand!

Alternatives to Plotted Movement

It looks like folks actually do read my ramblings, and we had some good discussion on the last post.  So to follow up, here's an incomplete summary of alternatives to plotted movement.

1. Alternating bounds - Side A moves first each turn followed by Side B.  This was used in the WRG Renaissance Galley Rules (the ancestor of the whole DBA family).  It works for the galley periods, but not for sail and steam eras.
2. Alternate ABBA (no not the group, they sang about Waterloo not Trafalgar) - side A moves first this turn followed by B.  Next turn B goes first and then A.  This was used as the default in General Quarters 2 (the first GQ ruleset for WWI).  It's simple to apply, allows for alternating initiatives and works well in the steam era when ranges are much larger than movement distances.
3.  Initiative die rolls - each division rolls a die (which can be modified for command ability) and move in the order highest to lowest.  David Manley uses this in several of his rules.  It work especially well in the pre-dreadnought era as it allows the Japanese and US navies to get the jump on their Chinese, Spanish and Russian opponents.
4. Leeward to Windward - used in the WH Trafalgar rules, this works well for age of sail as it gives the advantage to the fleet to the windward (as was historically the case).  I think you need house rules for squadrons sailing upwind in line ahead (a common tactic historically) as the way Trafalgar is written you'll end up rear-ending your squadron mates.  
5. Reading through accounts of WWI actions, I've wondered about reversing this for coal fired ships - having the downwind ships move first.  This gives the advantage to the side with clear vision (as funnel smoke blocked the LOS downwind).
6. Drawing Cards - allocate one card per squadron and draw them one at a time each turn.  This was used in various incarnations of MacDuff, and I've seen it elsewhere.  I've never tried it at sea but it worked well on dry land and provided a real source of tension.  A modified version appears in David Manley's "Form Line of Battle".
7. Action based systems - 15-20 yrs ago (OMG I'm getting old) I wrote a set of WWI rules that used an action based movement system.  Players selected a type of action (such as Open, Close, Flee etc) and moved in sequence.  It worked quite well in practice and most players found it intuitive to use.  I'll post the full system  soon.

Any others out there?

Thoughts on Movement

Typically, movement rules get short shift in many naval games.  Most rule sets use plotted movement rules (you know two steps forward, two left turns then straight ahead) and don't give much thought beyond that point.  I have some issues with everyone plotting movement and then revealing them simultaneously including

1. It slows the game down.  Get a rules lawyer or a chess player in the game and things slooooowww down with players going through all the "if he does that and I do this options".
2. It results in too many maneuvers.  Take a look at the tracks of the major actions over time - straight lines and gentle curves with a few major course corrections.  A case in point is the track of HMS Lion at Jutland - a 180 degree turn when the High Seas Fleet is spotted then a turn east to head off Hipper's battlecruisers.  Otherwise Beatty made small changes in course to change the range slightly, avoid destroyer attacks and the like.  Now compare the tracks in most tabletop actions - they look like toddlers' doodles by comparison - spirals and lots of changes in direction (often without any obvious long term plan).
3. It's too easy to get directions backwards.  If there was one incident that drove home the problems with plotting movement, it was the sight of Von Spee's squadron getting it's T crossed at the Falklands instead of opening the range as desired.  With all the gyrations of maneuvers the player got his left and right backwards.
4. It forces players to think relative of position in the sea, when in reality they should thinking relative to the position of the other squadrons.  Fixed landmarks make a lot of sense in land games, but at sea it's the enemy's fleet that's the benchmark - and that is a moving target.

Reading battle narratives it is clear while that admirals try predict their opponents moves, most course changes are made in reaction to enemy moves or combat results. Course changes are made to keep the range at its most favourable point, or in attempt to place your ships at the favourable range (this may mean running away when facing long odds or torpedo attacks!).  Alternately, a course may be maintained to block the enemy's passage or cross his T.  

While I've never commanded a squadron of ships in battle, I have skipped a sail boat in a regatta. Even with the objectives of fixed marks (bouys for you lubbers) to round, you find yourself constantly placing your boat  in position relative to your opponent.  If you are ahead, you want to go to the same side of the course as your opponent and vice versa if you are behind.  And just watch the boats jockeying for position coming up to a mark.


Of course not every rule book uses plotted movement, and a discussion of alternatives will follow in a future post.

Rules, Rules, Rules

I've been away from the blogging for a bit (and also away from modelling) due to a chronic case of real life.  I am a university lecturer and it's the second last week of classes - so I'm busy but the light at the end of the tunnel is visible.


However, I've been thinking about possible pre-dreadnought rule sets to use for my Santiago project.  The contenders include.

1. Fire When Ready
• This is the current front runner.  I have a lot of time for David Manley having read several articles, scenarios and rule sets of his over the years.  I have a copy of these rules, and they are well though out have good ideas (and look like the type of rules I'd like to write).
2. Perfidious Albion
• Another set of professional rules, which has been used by the Edinburgh club (including Angus Konstam).  They are apparently fun and do carry over from the Fred Jane Rules.  It looks like there's a lot of paper work, the Edinburgh games seem very bloody>  I also have some issues with the probability models used for gun combat (it wouldn't bug most people but I teach 3rd and 4th year courses in probability theory!)
3. Fred Jane Rules
• At some point I will run a game using these rules, they look fun and they were state of the art 120 years ago.  These do require an umpire (at least for rules interpretation) and the production of both scoring templates and strikers.
4. DBSA (Damn Battleships Again)
• Phil Barker's DBA variant for pre-dreadnought naval games.  Look like they give fun, fast, easy to learn games.  However, they are abstract and may not translate well to cases where the two fleets are of diverse qualities.
5.  General Quarters Variants
• The option does exist and there are rules translation out on the web.  The GQ system is abstract (but not as much as DBSA) but does give good results.  This will involve some fiddling around on my part (which might lead to me writing a whole new set of homebrews).
6. Memoir of Battle at Sea
• Bob Cordery intrigued me with his posts.  He kindly sent me an up--to-date set.  Again they look like they give a good fun and fast game.  Plus there's the advantage of being playable in a limited table space.  More abstract than the others.
7. Homebrews
• In days of old (pre-child, mortgage etc) this would be the natural starting point.  However, this looks to be yet another project that I would start and then stall at.

Thoughts on Naval Scenarios - Relative Advantages

I've been thinking about scenario design for naval war games and came up with the following relative advantages that exists.

1. Advantage of Strength (out-gunning) exists when one side has a clear advantage in firepower. Therefore in a toe-to toe slugfest the fleet with this advantage should win a gun battle.
2. Advantage of Manoeuvre (out-running) exists when one side can show the other a clean set of heels and thus avoid the toe-to-toe slugfest. or alternately prevent their opponents from running away.
3. Advantage of Position exists when one fleet holds a blocking position, essentially lies between the enemy fleet and their objective.
4. Advantage of Situation exists when the status-quo favours one side and forces their opponent to press for a conclusive result.

Obviously the key to scenario design is to balance these for advantages to produce a competitive and fun 
game  (I'm still working on this one).  Obviously a combat between one side with an advantage of sped and another with an advantage of firepower will be short with - one side running and the other gunning until the weaker side gets away or is hit badly enough to slow down and be overwhelmed.


To illustrate these let's look at a couple of historical actions. 

• River Plate 1939
• The Graf Spee holds a clear advantage of firepower.  In a gun battle she can expect to overwhelm the british cruisers (and did so historically)
• Commodore Harwood holds a clear advantage of manoeuvre and can decide to fight or flee.
• There is no real advantage of position as the battle was fought on the open sea and neither side effectively blocked the other.
• The british hold an advantage of situation as the Germans must fore a clear victory which in this case means to drive off his pursuers and escape in good shape.  A stalemate will allow the RN to call in further reinforcements and hold an advantage of strength.  A bloody victory will leave the Graf Spee useless as a raider and at the mercy of any new RN ships she meets.

• SMS Goeben vs. Admiral Troubridge (1914)
• Here the Goeben holds a clear advantage of both firepower and speed over the British armoured cruisers.  
• But now Troubridge can hold an advantage of position by blocking the Germans access to Constantinople.
• Historically the advantage of situation lay with the Germans, if Troubridge did nothing (as he did) then SMS Goeben  becomes the Yavuz Sultan Selim and the entire shape of the war changes.  However, if Troubridge was blocking the way then the Germans have to fight his way past while retaining full power of manoeuvre or he'd be caught by stronger RN forces.

There are similarities between the two scenarios, and they both make fun and challenging games.  However, the differences n speed and position make for different challenges.

Why Game the Spanish American War?

Ok, enough of the pictures and time to use this as a medium for organizing my thoughts (good luck on that one).  On the surface, Santiago seems to have been very one sided.  The Armada lost all 6 ships and the US Fleet suffered only minor damage.  Dig a little deeper and the Caribbean  Campaign offers a fair but if flavour and the all important wargaming possibilities.  So here goes...

1. Goofy looking ships, the naval equivalent of pretty uniforms.  Naval gamers love the late Victorian era for the weird and wonderful variety of ship designs, and they are present in the Span-Am war.  Low freeboards, high freeboards, turrets in echelon, barbettes in lozenges, broadside guns, Elswick cruisers and early destroyers - it's all there.
2. Low density actions - The fleets engaged at Santiago included 6 armoured cruisers, 4 battleships, 3 torpedo craft and two armed yachts (more flavour).  That's a good level to make it interesting but not  big enough to be overwhelming.  Count up the ships engaged at Lissa, Round Island or Tsushima and think about fitting them on a table easily.
3. Short gun ranges - OK relatively short gun ranges compared to later actions but not as short as the age of sail or ACW.  Ranges were  almost always under 6000 yards, and the maximum was 10,000 yds.  Six later at Round Island they opened fire at 14,000, and ranges were over 20,000 yds by WWI.  That   means your minimum table or floor space is manageable.  At 1cm=100yds (~1:10,000) the max range is 1 metre, at 1"=100 yds (1:3600) max range is 100".
4. Gaming it at 1:1200 is possible - this follows as a direct result of the previous two bullets, and means that your models can look appropriately goofy (as per the first bullet).  As you can see from my photos, I am no master modeller but simple models give the right look in my eyes.  I'll admit that other scales work too, especially given the quality of the War Time Journal 1:3000 vessels.  But 1:1200 gives a proper gaming with toy boats feel.
5. Transitional Periods Are Always Interesting - The period 1880-99 was one where naval architects were forced to compromise (probably more than any other period).  There were finite limits on the combinations of fire power, speed and protection for any given ship.  This only eased at the end of the century when new armour processes allowed the same levels of protection for far less weight. 
6. Free Reference Materials Available on the Net or Library - searches via the Internet archives or Google books bring up lots of interesting stuff. Or cruise through your local library (University libraries are especially useful).  I'll post a full reading list of the ebooks on my MacBook's hard drive in a later post.
7. Operational Possibilities - From the US standpoint there are operational challenges.  Initially Adm Sampson was charged with blockading Cuban ports, locating Cervera, supporting the Cuban rebels and protecting the Eastern Seaboard from Cervera.  And one of his major units (USS Oregon) was en route from the Pacific Coast via Cape Horn (Teddy hadn't dug the canal yet).  That's a lot of bread to spread your butter over and it can't be very thick in any one place.  On arriving in the Caribbean, Cervara had options too.  In the end he tied up the US fleet nicely by diving for cover at Santiago while Sampson and Schley searched for him on the open sea.
8. Scenario Possibilities - We have fleet actions, shore bombardments, blockade running, troop convoys and gun boat actions up narrow creeks.  Let's add in the possibilities from Cervara running into dispersed elements of Sampson's fleet and aggressive actions from blockaded ports and there's lots of possibles here.
9. Plenty of Scope to Given the Spanish a Better Chance -  Ah yes the wargamer's what ifs.  Let's face it the Spanish were the fleet most likely to step on a rake in 1898, but there's plenty of option to give them a better chance.  First we can work with what they had historically and improve their efficiency.  Dig a little deeper and we can allow them to build up their fleet with purchases and building programs (heck just finishing up the ships on the stocks would help).  And lastly there is:
10. Escalate the War to Include Other Nations - it's the last thing you want to see in the news, but this is all grist for the wargamers' mill.  Prime candidates would be the three leading European naval powers - Great Britain, France and Germany.   

That's enough for now, but I'll likely blog on some of these bullets further in the future.