After covering the four individual games in The Guerrilla Generation in the previous articles of this series, it is now time to discuss the multipack’s campaign scenario: Resisting Reagan. I think campaign scenarios that link at least some of the games together is an essential part of each multipack, allowing designers to show broader connections between conflicts and also encouraging players to experience them in a comparative manner. The second reason is particularly important, as one of the main advantages of multipacks is to enable players to make comparisons of the different approaches to insurgency and counterinsurgency across the four conflicts included in each pack. The first multipack’s campaign scenario, The British Way’s End of Empire, had players go through each game in succession across the British Empire, with Campaign Events and Colonial Policies bringing in the broader strategic level of Britain’s retreat from empire. When picking the topic of the second multipack, I wanted to choose one that would allow for a completely different approach to a linked campaign.

The Guerrilla Generation’s Resisting Reagan campaign scenario takes a significantly different approach to The British Way’s End of Empire campaign. First, there were less clear links between all four of the conflicts than in The British Way. However, two of the conflicts, Nicaragua and El Salvador, occurred in parallel and had several important links. In Resisting Reagan, players simultaneously play through Nicaragua and El Salvador side-by-side, resolving one third of each game before in a Campaign Round. This parallel side-by-side approach also enables a four-player variant of the campaign scenario, with a team of two players on each side. The British Way’s End of Empire scenario had one player making most of the strategic decisions, due to the British government being the link across the four conflicts taking place in their vast empire. A second important change in the Resisting Reagan Campaign is that both sides make strategic decisions each Campaign Round, many of which are outlined further below. The third major difference in the Resisting Reagan campaign is its overall complexity. In line with the broader approach of making The British Way the “introductory” multipack and The Guerrilla Generation a “moderate” complexity pack, the Resisting Reagan campaign is more mechanically involved than End of Empire was. I highly recommend players become familiar with the individual El Salvador and Nicaragua games before adding in the extra layer of complexity of the campaign rules. Luckily, Joe is here to keep me from adding too much complexity, especially since there might be a third “high” complexity multipack at some point in the future!

Three Battlegrounds: El Salvador, Nicaragua, and United States

The newly elected Reagan Administration viewed recent events in Central America with alarm. In 1979, the brutal Somoza regime in Nicaragua had been overthrown by a leftist insurgency known as the Sandinistas, the first major insurgent victory over a US ally since Cuba in 1959. Even worse, the Reagan Administration believed that the new Sandinista regime was supporting the growing FMLN insurgency in El Salvador. With a Cold War mindset, the administration officials saw these events as the spread of Soviet influence within America’s “own backyard” posing a grave threat to the region and also the United States. Therefore, Reagan made it a major part of his presidency to support both the Salvadoran government’s fight against the FMLN insurgency in El Salvador and irregular Contra war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Although the administration used every tool at its disposal to apply pressure to the Sandinistas and stop the FMLN, the level of direct support often depended on getting the required aid through Congress.

Yet this aggressive stance towards Central America was not always popular with the American public and worried members of Congress. First, many in the United States saw the instability in Central America as caused by local issues such as state repression or economic inequality, rather than being part of some devious plot orchestrated by Cuba and the Soviet Union. If the revolutions originated from legitimate grievances, why should American money be used to stop them? Second, many in the American public became concerned over the possibility of “another Vietnam”, a costly intervention by American troops to stop a Communist insurgency from threatening a US ally. Finally, greater attention was given to the issue of human rights abuses than in previous decades, and the American public and Congress were less willing to support US allies if they were committing major abuses. In this period, many countries in the region faced US aid reductions or cutoffs, including the Somoza regime prior to its fall. With news coverage of right-wing death squads in El Salvador and terror attacks by Contra insurgents in Nicaragua, many wondered whether American aid only furthered repression. These concerns culminated in the Central American Peace Movement (CAPM), which sought to limit US aid and find peaceful solutions to the Central American conflicts, through public demonstrations and lobbying Congress.

Therefore, the Reagan Administration faced three parallel battlegrounds in carrying out its Central America policy: El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the United States. In the United States, the Administration and CAPM players will struggle over Congressional Aid to Nicaragua and El Salvador, and also attempt to shape Public Opinion of Reagan’s Central America Policy before and after resolving a “campaign” of El Salvador and Nicaragua (a “campaign” being COIN terminology for each stack of Events and a Propaganda Card, roughly one third of a game). Although players must attend to the situation in Washington, they still need to win the conflicts in El Salvador and Nicaragua, which in the campaign scenario can also affect each other. Each Government Faction may expend Resources to grant an External Support Card to their respective Insurgent Faction ally. In exchange, Insurgent Factions can carry out actions on their own board to interdict supplies to the opposing insurgency, helping their Government Faction ally. These interactions can lead to some particularly interesting negotiations when playing the four-player variant, where one player will take the role of each Faction across the whole campaign.

The Reagan Administration

In the campaign scenario, the Reagan Administration player (or players) must ensure a high level of Prestige for Reagan’s Central America Policy. Your advantages come with a deck of Cards that use the tools of the executive branch to boost the strength of the normal El Salvador Government and Contra insurgent Factions. The best way to win Prestige is through the final outcome of the conflicts, so doing everything possible to win is a must, even possibly circumventing Congress or looking the other way at human rights abuses. However, you face a tough battle back in the United States. Congress begins skeptical of aid to El Salvador and in slight opposition to Contra aid. In addition, the American public begins the scenario slightly worried about your aggressive stance toward the region. However, you have a couple of home field advantages. First, Reagan’s own Personality Card allows the Administration player to add to any one of the Track rolls during the Lobbying and Public Appeals Phase to represent the powerful effect of his direct appeals in Congress or to the public. In addition, if things are going badly for you in El Salvador and Nicaragua, you get a bonus to Congressional Aid Rolls, due to no Member of Congress wanting to be responsible for another Communist win in the region. 

Central American Peace Movement (CAPM)

As a collection of social movement organizations, the CAPM player (or players) doesn’t possess as strong tools for influencing the conflicts as their opponent, the executive branch of the United States Government. However, the CAPM is particularly skilled at swaying Public Opinion to their side, which can undermine the Administration’s Congressional Aid rolls, and thereby undermine aid to the respective conflicts. In addition, the CAPM player can lower Prestige if there are a large amount of Terror markers across the two boards. Recall from the earlier articles that the FMLN insurgency was highly restrained and the Sandinista regime’s counterinsurgency relied on conventional tactics rather than civilian victimization; therefore, only the El Salvador Government and Contra insurgency place Terror markers, making it easy to track how many human rights abuses have been committed by the US Administration’s allies. As the CAPM, your goal is to ensure that Public Opinion stays staunchly against Reagan’s policies in Central America and to undermine United States aid to the repressive factions in the region. Given its incredible diversity, it’s hard to make general statements about their stances, but at least some of those in the CAPM genuinely favored FMLN and Sandinista victories, since they believed the groups’ popularity arose out of legitimate grievances rather than Cold War meddling.

Conclusion

For those looking to learn more about the history behind the dynamics of the Resisting Reagan campaign scenario, I recommend starting with Christian Smith’s Resisting Reagan: The U.S. Central America Peace Movement. The book gives an excellent overview and inspired the scenario’s name. In addition, William LeoGrande’s Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992 provides a nice discussion of all three battlegrounds and their connections.

In terms of games, there are not really any obvious board games on the Central American Peace Movement. Games on social movements such as Votes for Women or Stonewall Uprising are still relatively rare. Technically, Victory Games’ Central America covers both these conflicts, but is mainly focused on the counterfactual of fighting out World War III in Central America. Much of the framing that Central America used, such as the rumor of the Soviets sending MiGs to the Sandinista regime (see the Reagan Event pictured above), has mostly been proven to be misinformation used by the Reagan Administration, in order to bolster their claims of the external threat posed by the Sandinista and FMLN in the face of the CAPM’s alternative framing of legitimate grievances and local issues. In some sense, the differences between The Guerrilla Generation’sResisting Reagan campaign and Central America highlight the evolution of the information available on these topics and of historical board game design in general.

I hope you enjoyed this series of InsideGMT articles on The Guerrilla Generation, and we look forward to seeing what you think of the games once the multipack is released. For those interested in The British Way, stay tuned for more variants and possibly news of an expansion in the works!

---

Previous Articles: 

The Guerrilla Generation: Uruguay

The Guerrilla Generation: Peru

The Guerrilla Generation: El Salvador

The Guerrilla Generation: Nicaragua