Equatorial Clash
Equatorial Clash Rulebook
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Components
- 3. How to win
- 4. Game setup
- 5. Sequence of play
- 6. Political checks
- 7. Reinforcements
- 8. Action Points & Impulses
- 9. Strategic actions
- 10. Operational actions
- 11. Stacking and overstacking
- 12. Tactical actions: Combat
- 13. Tactical actions: Peruvian airborne operation
- 14. Command actions: Political pressure
- 15. Command actions: Refit & Recover
- 16. Other fronts resolution
- 17. Victory points tally
- 18. End of turn
- Historical background
- Design notes
- References
1. Introduction
Although there were combats at many border points, the main operations took place near the coast, in the axis from Tumbes in Peru to Machala in Ecuador, so the game is centered around these combats. Operations lasted almost a month, from July 5 to July 31, when a cease-fire was signed, and although there were also small clashes afterwards, until January 1942, the game, again, is centered around those weeks of July.
The game uses a map divided into areas and in each turn players will alternate taking "impulses" in which they can spend a certain amount of action points in order to move military units, launch combats, replenish depleted units and influence in political matters. The other fronts of the war are represented in a more abstract way as two tracks: one for the Macara-Loja axis, up in the mountains, and another one for the Amazonian outposts as a whole.
This game is composed of (besides this rulebook):
- A map (A2 size), showing the border coastal zone between both countries, from Tumbes (Peru) to Machala (Ecuador).
- A countersheet with 80 playing pieces.
- A player aid sheets (PAS).
2. Components
2.1. The map
The map is divided into areas that are used to regulate the placement and movement of units. Each area is identified with an id number. Terrain on the map has been altered slightly from their real-world configuration where necessary. Each area of the map represents between 10 and 30 square kilometers. Areas that meet just in a vertex are not considered adjacent.
The terrain type of the areas can be either normal, mountain (symbolized by a brown circle around the id number) or swamp (symbolized by a blue circle around the id number). The map also marks the 1936 status quo line between the two countries and some of the rivers of the zone (part of the border runs along the Zarumilla river). Some areas are connected also by road and/or railroad. The population centers in some areas are either cities (name in larger font) or towns (smaller font) and some zones also have a victory point (VP) and/or action points (AP) value in a small brown or violet box. Villages have no effect in play. Refer also to the PAS while reading this section.
The map also contains various tracks and boxes:
- The Turn track (framing "El Comercio" heading).
- The tracks for the off-map fronts: the Macara-Loja front and the Amazonian Outposts front.
- The Arroyo del Rio's track.
- An "Assets" box, with a "Spent" space, for each player.
- The Ecuador map inset with "Sierra/Costa norte", "Guayaquil" and "Golfo de Guayaquil" spaces.
NOTE: In these rules, the terms "status quo line" and "border" are used as synonyms. There was no clearly delimited border in the Zarumilla region, and only in 1936 was traced a status quo line, following the changing braided channels of the Zarumilla river.
2.2. The playing pieces
The playing pieces are military units or markers. Military units can be combat units or assets and show the following color scheme: Peruvian units are reddish with symbols in white and blue; Ecuadorean units are yellow with symbols in white and blue (see PAS 8).
2.2.1. Combat units
Combat units are all land units and their type is indicated by means of NATO symbols. Combat units have two factors: a combat strength (CS) value, which determines their force in battles, and resistance, marked with one to three dashes, which determines the effect of enemy hits on them. Some units have a star or two besides their combat strength, which means they have a bonus in combat (see section 12 on combat). Security forces have a dashed line below the NATO symbol to remember its movement restrictions (see 10.1).
Units of both sides that enter as reinforcements show an entry turn (T#) at the upper right corner. Ecuadorean "blocked" units show two thin white vertical stripes.
The reverse side of all combat units shows the unit in a disrupted state, with lower strength and resistance. This side is shown by a largely white background.
(Figure: counter key showing the air combat value, combat strength, to-hit value, combat resistance, entry turn (T#), bonus, blocked unit (white stripes), disrupted unit (white background) and reinforcement unit.)
2.2.2. Assets
Assets are air units and naval units, which show an image of the plane or ship. Air units have two factors: number of dice rolled in air battle (shown as small squares; can be zero) and the minimum value needed to score a hit on enemy air units. Naval units have just one value: the die-roll modifier applied to the Ecuadorean transport die roll (see section 9.2).
2.2.3. Markers
Various markers are used to control some game features:
- The turn marker to track the current game turn. The reverse shows the text "Cease-fire", used when a cease-fire is declared (see 6.3).
- The markers "Frente ML" and "Frente AM", to track the situation in the other war fronts, represented by means of the two tracks "Macara-Loja" and "Amazonian Outposts". Their reverse "OP ended" is used when the front becomes locked.
- The "Action Points" markers, one for Peru and the other for Ecuador, to track the number of APs available. The reverses show the text "Pass", used when the player stops spending APs.
- The "VP" marker to track VPs. Front side is for positive values; back side, for negative ones.
- The "Arroyo del Rio" marker, to track the situation of the Arroyo's government in the corresponding track. Its side "Pressed" is used to show that the action of pressing the President has already been performed in a given turn.
- Control markers to track control of home areas by the enemy.
- One "Road connection" marker.
2.3. The Player Aid Sheets
PAS 1 contains the Combat Resolution Table (CRT), the Hits Assignment table, the Other Fronts Resolution table and a summary of naval transport rules.
PAS 2 contains a summary of possible actions to be performed.
PAS 3 contains a counter identification chart, a summary of stacking, refit and air combat rules, and the terrain key.
PAS 4 contains the sequence of play, an "Eliminated units" box, a "Blocked units" box, a summary of reinforcements placement and the Victory Points and Action Points (VP/AP) track.
3. How to win
Victory is achieved by means of victory points (VPs). Positive VPs favor the Peruvian player, while negative ones favor the Ecuadorean player. The brown-colored VPs in the game board (also marked with a round symbol) are awarded during the VP Tally phase of each turn, while violet-colored VPs in the game board (also marked with a star symbol) are awarded only during the VP Tally phase of the last turn (see section 17).
This way, each turn, VPs are awarded for:
- Ecuadorean control of VP areas at both sides along the border (brown negative VPs).
At game end only, VPs are awarded for:
- Peruvian control of VP areas in Ecuador (violet positive VPs).
- Position of the two "Other Fronts" markers.
- Position of the Arroyo del Rio marker.
Note that VPs for negative VP areas are only awarded if the Ecuadorean player controls them.
The final VP value is assessed against the turn in which the game has ended:
- VP-Turn # > 1: Peruvian victory
- VP-Turn # = 1, 0, -1: Draw
- VP-Turn # < -1: Ecuadorean victory
If at any time the Ecuadorean player controls Tumbes, the game ends immediately with an Ecuadorean victory, regardless of the VP value.
If at the end of the Impulses Phase of any turn the Peruvian player controls all VP areas of the main map, the game ends at the end of that turn. Points are tallied as usual during the VP Tally phase.
3.1. Control of an area
All areas are either Peruvian-controlled or Ecuadorean-controlled. At game start, all areas in Perú are Peruvian-controlled and all areas in Ecuador are Ecuadorean-controlled.
An area changes control to the enemy when there is at least one enemy unit and no friendly units or, if there are only disrupted friendly unit(s), there is at least one undisrupted enemy unit.
4. Game setup
Prepare for play choosing sides. Then put the map on the table and set up the counters.
- Put the turn marker on the Turn 1 box of the turn track.
- Put the "Frente ML" and "Frente AM" markers on the central boxes of the respective "Macará-Loja" and "Amazonian Outposts" tracks.
- Put the "Arroyo del Río" marker in the first box of the Arroyo track.
- Put both AP markers in the box "0" of the AP/VP track.
- Put the VP marker in the box "0" of the AP/VP track.
4.1. Ecuadorean setup
First, sort the Ecuadorean units: those with an entry turn (T#) in the upper right corner, those with two thin white vertical stripes, and the rest. Now, set up all Ecuadorean units as follows:
- "Blocked units" box in PAS4: all units with two vertical white strips.
- Turn track: all units with an entry turn (in the corresponding turn box).
- Huaquillas: Cayambe battalion.
- Chacras: Carchi battalion.
- Arenillas: Córdova engineer battalion.
- Carabón: Montecristi battalion.
- Quebrada Seca: one infantry company.
- Santa Rosa: Sucre artillery company.
- Santa Rosa or Machala: Carabineros battalion.
- "Sierra/Costa norte" box: Imbabura battalion.
- "Guayaquil" box: antiaircraft unit, Alajuela cavalry battalion, Carabineros company.
- Ecuadorean assets box: CW-19 air unit.
- "Golfo de Guayaquil" box or Ecuadorean assets box: Calderón gunboat (the player can choose to deploy the gunboat already at sea).
4.2. Peruvian setup
First, sort the Peruvian units: those with an entry turn (T#) in the upper right corner and the rest. Now, set up all Peruvian units as follows:
- Turn track: all units with a turn entry (in the corresponding turn box).
- Tumbes: infantry battalions 3 and 31/1, cavalry battalions 5 and 7, armor company 1, artillery company 6, antiaircraft unit (they are overstacked, it's correct).
- Any border area(s): infantry battalions 1/1, 5/1, and 19/1, two infantry companies, artillery company 1, engineer battalion 1, Guardia Civil.
- Peruvian assets box: Almirante Villar destroyer and Coronel Bolognesi cruiser naval units, Ca.114, Ca.310, and A14 air units.
5. Sequence of play
The game is played in a certain number of turns, each one representing approximately 2 days. Each game turn is subdivided into phases. Once the setup is complete, players will begin with turn 1; in each turn, players will follow the sequence of phases as shown below:
- Political checks
- Reinforcements placement
- Action Points assignment
- Impulses
- Other fronts resolution
- VP Tally
- End of turn
After the End of Turn phase, if the game has not finished, advance the turn marker and begin again this sequence for the next turn. In the following sections, each phase and step is explained in detail.
6. Political checks
6.1. Arroyo del Rio's check
The Ecuadorean player checks the level of political and military pressure on Arroyo del Rio's government, as indicated in the "Arroyo del Rio" track. Each box of the track affects the players as follows:
- Each box gives a positive or negative value of VPs at game end.
- The position of the box determines when a cease-fire is agreed (see subsection 6.3).
- Each box gives a bonus or malus of APs to the Ecuadorean player, to be added or subtracted during the upcoming Action Points phase of the turn.
- If the Arroyo marker is in any of the boxes 5 to 8, labeled with Ecuadorean blocked units, the blocked units indicated are now released and placed immediately as follows (if not specified, the player can choose which units are released):
- The "upgraded" air unit CW-19 replaces the original CW-19 in its current Available or Spent box (if the unit was eliminated, the upgraded unit does not enter play).
- The P35 air unit in the Ecuadorean assets box.
- The Guayas and Alfaro infantry units in the "Guayaquil" box.
- All other units in the "Sierra/Costa norte" box.
COMMENT: President Arroyo del Rio had frequent clashes with the Army during his tenure and his policy led to the imprisonment of various officers, especially the air officers of the Simón Bolívar Air Base at Guayaquil. Although Arroyo kept power during the war, mounting pressure could have led to the liberation of air force officers, a rapid repair of the few fighters available, the assignment of more resources to military operations and the mobilization of the many units still in their quarters. Note: the P35 fighters were in fact purchased after the war.
6.2. Emergency reinforcements
If the Peruvian player controls Santa Rosa, the Ecuadorian player can, once per game, release one of his blocked units, regardless of the position of the Arroyo del Rio marker in Arroyo's track.
If the Peruvian player controls Machala, the Ecuadorian player can, once per game, release a second of his blocked units, regardless of the position of the Arroyo del Rio marker in Arroyo's track.
Place these units according to the placement rules stated in the previous subsection (and in the Blocked Units box in PAS4).
6.3. Cease-fire check
Source note: the printed Table of Contents numbers both "Emergency reinforcements" and "Cease-fire Check" as 6.2; the body headings are 6.2 and 6.3 respectively, and the body's cross-references ("see subsection 6.3") use 6.3. The body numbering is followed here.
On turn T10 the players check the position of the Arroyo marker: either player rolls a die and, if the result is higher than the current position of the Arroyo marker, a cease-fire is agreed and the game ends at the end of T10. Flip the turn marker to its "Cease-fire" side.
If no cease-fire is agreed on T10, it is checked again on turn T11: either player rolls a die and, if the result is higher than the current position of the Arroyo marker, a cease-fire is agreed and the game ends at the end of T11. Flip the turn marker to its "Cease-fire" side.
Important: A result of 6 always prompts the cease-fire agreement, regardless of the position of the Arroyo marker.
If no cease-fire is agreed in turns T10 nor T11, the game ends at the end of T12.
COMMENT: The advance of Peruvian troops prompted the Ecuadorean government to seek a cease-fire. Moreover, the United States, worried about destabilization in the Pacific Coast while relations with Japan were deteriorating, pressed for a cease-fire, backed by Brazil and other South American countries.
7. Reinforcements
First, for each asset in the Spent box roll a die: on a result of 1 or 2, the unit remains in the Spent box; otherwise, it is placed in the Assets box. In the case of the Coronel Bolognesi cruiser, on a result of 1 or 2, the unit is removed from play (not eliminated, just placed off-map).
Then, if there are any units on the current turn box, these units enter as reinforcements at this moment. The placement of these reinforcements is as follows:
- Ecuadorean reinforcements enter in the following places: Guardia Nacional battalion and Macheteros battalion in the "Guayaquil" box, Tulcán infantry battalion in the "Sierra/Costa norte" box.
- Peruvian reinforcements are placed always in Tumbes.
8. Action Points & Impulses
Each turn both players collect a number of action points (APs) equal to their respective base values, indicated in the turn track, plus:
- The result of 1d6.
- +1 or 2 APs if kept from the previous turn.
- For the Ecuadorean player, the APs indicated in Huaquillas and/or Arenillas if he controls them.
- For the Peruvian player, the APs indicated in Arenillas and/or Santa Rosa if he controls them.
After APs assignment, players go to the Impulses phase. Beginning always with the Peruvian player, players alternate impulses in which they can spend any number of APs for actions of only one category (Strategic, Operational, Tactical or Command) in each impulse. Once a player has spent APs as desired, the impulse goes to the other player, which does the same.
In this way, players will keep spending APs until passing or reaching 0 AP in the AP track. Once a player passes, he/she cannot perform any more impulses (flip the AP marker to show its side "Pass"). A player can keep a maximum of 2 APs for the next turn.
8.1. Spending Action Points
The cost of each type of action in Action Points is as shown in the Player Aid Sheet 2. Each action is explained in detail in the following sections, according to its category.
9. Strategic actions
9.1. Rearguard movement
A rearguard area is defined as any friendly-controlled area without enemy units (disrupted or undisrupted). A unit moves from one rearguard area to another rearguard area as follows:
- 2 APs for moving across any number of rearguard areas, all connected by road or rail. Companies and AA sections spend only 1 AP.
- Rearguard movement always needs road or rail, but you cannot combine road and rail in the same movement.
Movement involving any non-rearguard area or rearguard areas without road nor rail is performed as Standard Movement, an operational action (see 10.1). Terrain and disruption have no effect on rearguard movement.
9.2. Transport (ECU only)
A unit in the "Sierra/Costa norte" box spends 2 APs to move to the "Guayaquil" box.
A unit in the "Guayaquil" box spends 3 APs to move to El Guabo, but the unit arrives disrupted. Exception: cavalry units arrive undisrupted.
A unit in the "Guayaquil" box spends 1 AP to attempt a naval move to Puerto Bolívar. The Ecuadorean player then rolls a die and adds/subtracts the die roll modifier conferred by the naval units in the "Golfo de Guayaquil" box (+2 for Almirante Villar, +3 for Coronel Bolognesi, -1 for Calderón). Then, he applies the following effects according to the result obtained:
- die roll + drm < 5, the unit arrives unimpeded.
- die roll + drm = 5, the unit arrives but disrupted.
- die roll + drm = 6, the unit does not move (stays in GYQ).
- die roll + drm > 6, the unit does not move (stays in GYQ) and Calderón is eliminated if present.
- If Calderón present, Coronel Bolognesi not present, and unmodified die roll = 1, Almirante Villar is eliminated if present.
If Puerto Bolívar is Peruvian-controlled, units in Guayaquil cannot be transported to Puerto Bolívar. If El Guabo is Peruvian-controlled, units in Guayaquil cannot be transported to El Guabo. If both Puerto Bolívar and El Guabo are Peruvian-controlled, no units in Guayaquil can be transported at all.
Important: If a unit has performed Transport (with or without success), it cannot perform any other strategic action in that same impulse.
(Figure: map detail of the Guayaquil, Golfo de Guayaquil, El Guabo and Puerto Bolívar area, with the naval units shown in the Golfo.)
EXAMPLE: The Ecuadorian player takes an impulse for Strategic Actions. First, he spends 2 APs to perform a Rearguard Movement action with the Tulcán battalion in El Guabo (23); by road via area 22 it moves to Machala (24); remember that rearguard movement is always by road or by rail, otherwise it will be standard movement. Then, he spends 2 APs more to perform another rearguard movement with the same battalion, now by rail, and moves it from Machala to Santa Rosa (19). Then, the Guardia Nacional battalion in Guayaquil attempts a naval Transport action to Puerto Bolívar (25). Paying 1 AP, the Ecuadorean player rolls a die, modified with +2 and -1 for the naval units in the Golfo de Guayaquil. The player rolls a 3, modified to 4, so the unit arrives unimpeded to Puerto Bolívar. Nevertheless, it cannot move again using rearguard movement by rail, because units that use Transport action cannot take another action in the same impulse.
9.3. Other fronts
The two tracks "Macara-Loja" and "Amazonian Outposts" represent other points where clashes occurred during the war, far from the theatre represented in the game.
Each turn, during the Other Fronts resolution phase, both fronts will be checked (see section 16). During the Impulses phase, both players can send units as a reinforcement to those fronts, in order to improve their chances of advancing, at a cost of 3 AP per unit. The units that can be relocated to these fronts are:
- PER: units in Tumbes.
- ECU: units in Guayaquil or in the "Sierra/Costa norte" box.
Place the units in the corresponding boxes "Peru" or "Ecuador" at each end of the tracks.
Important: Only infantry, engineers, and cavalry units can be sent to the Macara-Loja front; only infantry and engineers can be sent to the Amazonian front.
Important: All units sent to the other fronts never return, but can be disrupted and eliminated (see section 16).
COMMENT: The fighting in those other fronts began slightly later than in the coastal region. In the Amazonian outposts, the fight began in earnest in late July and lasted until September despite the cease-fire, and it must be noted that there was no "front" there, but just separate battles at river outposts. In the Loja front, the actions took place mainly in late July. For sake of gameplay, we condensed the fighting in these other fronts in the same timeframe as the main fighting on the coast.
10. Operational actions
10.1. Standard movement
A unit moves from one area to an adjacent area spending 2 APs. Companies and cavalry spend only 1 AP.
Important: Carabineros, Guardia Nacional and Guardia Civil units can move only in home areas as well as in non-home areas adjacent to the status quo line (not in enemy territory beyond). AA sections cannot use standard movement, only rearguard movement.
10.1.1. Restrictions on standard movement
Terrain: Entering a mountain or swamp area always adds 1 AP to the standard movement cost.
Disruption: A disrupted unit cannot enter an enemy-controlled area.
Presence of enemy units: A non-cavalry unit that leaves an area in which there are one or more undisrupted enemy units, adds 1 AP to its movement AP costs.
No infiltration: A unit cannot move from an area in which there are one or more undisrupted enemy units to an enemy-controlled area.
EXAMPLE: The Peruvian player takes an impulse for Operational Actions. In this situation, Carabén (4) is Peruvian-controlled because it has undisrupted units while Ecuador has only disrupted units (the Montecristi battalion); Huaquillas, instead, is still Ecuadorean-controlled because the infantry company there is undisrupted. Now, the Peruvian player spends 2 APs + 1 AP to move the battalion and the company in Papayal (7) to Chacras (3). Then, he spends 2 APs to move the infantry battalion in Carabén (4) also to Chacras (3). Note that he cannot move the battalion in Huaquillas (2) to Chacras because a unit cannot move from an area in which there are one or more undisrupted enemy units to an enemy-controlled area. Note also that if he moves both units from Carabén (4) the area will revert to Ecuadorean control, with no Peruvian units and an Ecuadorean unit.
Let's suppose now that in this same situation, the Ecuadorean player takes an impulse for Operational Actions. He can move the Montecristi battalion from Carabén (4) to Arenillas (8) or Chacras (3) for 3 APs (2 + 1 for leaving an area with undisrupted enemy units) or to Palmales (7) for 4 AP (2 + 1 for leaving an area with undisrupted enemy units + 1 for entering a mountain area). It cannot go to Papayal because a disrupted unit cannot enter an enemy-controlled area.
10.2. Road construction (PER only)
If the Peruvian player controls two border zones separated by the border line and it has an engineer unit in one of them, the Peruvian player, at a cost of 3 APs, can place a "Road connection" marker across the border. The marker is placed on its "Road works" side and must be accompanied by the engineer unit, so the connection is not usable yet and the engineer unit cannot perform any other action for the remainder of the turn (in case of combat, it cannot take part in it). The "Road connection" counter will be flipped to the "Road connect." side at the end of the turn; the engineer unit can then be placed in either of the connected areas. During construction, if the Peruvian player loses control of either area, the engineer is placed in the area still under Peruvian control and the "Road connection" marker is removed from the map.
Once the construction is finished, both areas are connected by road at all effects, allowing the use of rearguard movement between them. The "Road connection" marker is permanent and cannot be destroyed. Note that there is only one "Road connection" marker; this limit is intentional.
10.3. Naval patrol
The Ecuadorean player can place the Calderón gunboat unit in the Golfo de Guayaquil box at a cost of 1 AP.
The Peruvian player can place the Almirante Villar destroyer unit in the Golfo de Guayaquil box at a cost of 1 AP, and/or the Coronel Bolognesi cruiser at a cost of 3 AP.
These units will affect the transport of units from Guayaquil to Puerto Bolívar during the current turn (see sections 9.2 and 17.1) and are returned to the Assets box during the End of Turn phase.
Source note: the printed text cites "17.1", which is not a heading in the source; the Victory Points tally is section 17 and is the intended reference.
(Figure: the Golfo de Guayaquil box with the naval units Calderón, Almirante Villar and Coronel Bolognesi.)
11. Stacking and overstacking
There is no limit to the number of units that can be in an area (called stacking, although there is no need to physically "stack" the counters), but above a certain number, the player is penalized because of overstacking. The conditions and effects of overstacking are as follows, taking into account that a company counts as 1/2 battalion:
- Normal stacking: Up to three battalions (or equivalents). No penalization.
- Operational overstacking: More than three and up to five battalions (or equivalents). The CS and resistance of each unit is reduced by 1.
- Physical overstacking: More than five battalions (or equivalents). Units cannot initiate attacks, the CS of each unit is reduced by 2 and its resistance is just 1.
The conditions and effects of overstacking are per player, so in any area, one player can be overstacked while the other not.
12. Tactical actions: Combat
The combat action costs as many APs as attacking battalions (or company equivalents, rounded up) and involves all friendly units (one of which must be undisrupted) and all enemy units in an area. As long as the player has APs, units can initiate combat as many times as desired. The procedure is as follows:
-
Declaration. Declare the area in which the combat will take place and spend the APs.
-
Offensive support. The attacker can assign any air units available in his assets box, at a cost of 1 AP per unit, up to a maximum of three air units.
-
Defensive support. The defender can assign a maximum of one air unit available in his assets box, at a cost of 2 APs.
-
Dogfight and AA fire. If there are air units of both players, or air units and AA units, an air battle ensues. Each player rolls as many dice as indicated in his air/AA units and inflicts hits on enemy units for each dice rolled with a value equal or greater than the corresponding "to-hit" value of the air unit (AA units cannot be hit by air units). Then, the players assign hits as follows:
- 1 hit: unit disrupted, place the unit in the "Spent" assets box. This unit won't support the upcoming land combat.
- 2 hits: unit eliminated, place the unit in the "Eliminated" box.
The owner can distribute hits as he sees fit; e.g. with 2 hits received and two air units, he can disrupt both units (1 hit each) or eliminate one unit (2 hits) and keep the other one. The surviving units could add their bonuses to the land combat.
-
Land combat resolution.
- Both players total the combat strength of their units and then each player rolls one die to determine how many hits inflicts on enemy units, according to the Combat Resolution Table (in PAS 1) and applying all possible die roll modifiers listed there.
- Now, first the attacker and then the defender assign hits received to their own units according to the hit assignment table (PAS 1). Hits are applied sequentially per unit, until the first unit reaches as many hits as its resistance; then remaining hits can be assigned to another unit, again until reaching its resistance, and so on. If after assigning hits to all units there are still hits to be assigned, those hits must be assigned, beginning again with one unit and repeating the same process. Note that this can lead to the elimination of units or to second retreats.
EXAMPLE: Following the movement example of the previous page, and after an Ecuadorean impulse that has not affected the units shown here, the Peruvian player performs a Tactical Impulse. He spends 3 APs to declare a combat in area 3 (2 battalions and 1 company = 2 1/2, rounded up to 3 APs), assigning also two air units for 1 AP each. The Ecuadorean player engages his air unit for 2 APs. As both players have air support, a dogfight ensues: PER rolls 3 dice with a "to hit" value of 5 and gets 2, 3, 5; ECU does not roll any dice (the CW-10, being used as recce airplane has not dogfight capabilities). The PER hit with the 5 disrupts the ECU air unit which is placed in the "Spent" box. Now the land combat is resolved. PER has a total strength of 9, with drm of +2 (two air units) and +1 (two-starred armor unit); ECU has a strength of 5 with drm of +1 (controlling town). The die rolls are, respectively, 3 (+3) = 6, and 2 (+1) = 3. In the CRT this means 4 and 2 hits, which must be applied, attacker first. PER applies the 2 hits to the "3" infantry battalion; as it is less than its resistance, it can disrupt or retreat and the player chooses to retreat it. ECU must apply 4 hits: and, as a unit must receive hits until reaching its resistance, ECU applies 2 hits to the Carabineros battalion, which disrupts and retreats. The remaining 2 hits must be applied to the other unit, so ECU applies it to the Cayambe battalion as a disruption, as he plans to reinforce the area in his next impulse. Nevertheless, as now the ECU remaining unit is disrupted, control of the area goes to PER (undisrupted enemy units and only disrupted friendly units). Note that if PER still has APs, he can continue taking Tactical Actions, so he can combat again in the same area!
EXAMPLE: Final position of units after the previous combat. Now the PER player can spend again 3 APs to declare another combat in the same area, if he wants... Maybe a good opportunity to wipe out the Cayambe battalion.
12.1. Retreats
When a unit retreats, determine the area to which it retreats according to the following preference order:
- A friendly controlled area with friendly units and no enemy units (even causing overstacking) or a friendly controlled area without units of neither player.
- A friendly controlled area with units of both players, but the retreating unit disrupts (or is eliminated if already disrupted) if there is at least one undisrupted enemy unit in the area.
If no area fulfilling any of these conditions is available, the unit cannot retreat and instead must disrupt or, if already disrupted, is eliminated.
13. Tactical actions: Peruvian airborne operation
The airborne operation is an action in which, at a cost of 4 APs, the Peruvian player can drop his airborne unit in any clear area. In order to do so: a) The airborne unit must be in Tumbes and undisrupted; b) A Caproni air unit [must] be available in the Assets box. If both these conditions are met then the airborne operation is launched:
- If the target area has any AA unit, it fires as in standard air combat. If the AA unit scores a hit, the Caproni goes to the Spent box as usual and the airborne unit is returned to Tumbes, disrupted.
- If the target area has no AA unit or the AA unit scored no hits, place the Caproni air unit in the Spent box, place the airborne unit in the target area and flip it to disrupted.
- If the target area has any Ecuadorean ground units, standard combat ensues with the following differences:
- The combat is performed with the airborne unit disrupted (an exception to the rule that disrupted units cannot initiate an attack) as the sole attacker (no other Peruvian units).
- No possibility of engaging air support.
- The combat is not simultaneous: the Peruvian player rolls the combat die (with a +1 drm) and the Ecuadorian player receives hits. If after assigning hits Ecuadorean units are still in the area, the Ecuadorean player rolls the combat die.
- If when assigning hits the Ecuadorean player can choose between disrupting or retreating, it must choose retreat.
COMMENT: The Peruvians did launch a very reduced airborne operation over Puerto Bolívar, the first one performed in the Americas, with Caproni 111 transporting less than a company of men. The performance of the parachutists was not terrific, but nevertheless achieved complete surprise and captured the town. The small Ecuadorean garrison then in Puerto Bolívar just fled.
14. Command actions: Political pressure
Political pressure is a Command action in which the Ecuadorean player can spend, only once per turn, 3 APs to advance the Arroyo marker one space and flip it to its "Pressed" side, as a reminder that this action has already been performed this turn.
Moving the Arroyo marker is the only means of releasing most Ecuadorean blocked units. During the Political Checks phase (see section 6.1), the position of the Arroyo marker will determine how many of these units are released and enter play.
On the other hand, the position of the Arroyo marker also affects the APs obtained by the Ecuadorean player in the Action Points Assignment phase (see section 8) as well as the VPs awarded at game end, positive or negative (see sections 3 and 17).
(Figure: the "Arroyo del Rio" and "Pressed" markers.)
15. Command actions: Refit & Recover
15.1. Refit
Refit is a Command action, in which at a cost of 1 AP a player can try to rally one disrupted non-artillery unit on the map (but not units sent to Other Fronts). For each disrupted unit, the player can spend additional x AP to get a +x die roll modifier. A modified die roll of 5 or more undisrupts the unit; any other die roll has no effect. The die roll is also modified as follows:
- +1 for each additional AP spent
- +1 if the unit is in a friendly controlled area with a city (not a town)
- -1 if the unit is in mountain or swamp terrain.
- -1 if there are undisrupted enemies in the area.
Each unit can attempt a refit only once per impulse.
15.2. Recover
Recover is a Command action in which, at a cost of 4 APs, a player can move any one combat unit from the eliminated box to Guayaquil (ECU) or Tumbes (PER) or move an asset from eliminated to the respective spent box. The unit arrives undisrupted.
16. Other fronts resolution
After both players have finished the Impulses phase, the situation of the other fronts is checked. For each front, the players calculate the number of Peruvian strength points minus the number of Ecuadorean strength points (the subtraction can give a negative result, and if no player sends units there, this value will be zero). Then either player rolls a die and cross-checks the result in the Other Fronts Resolution table (in PAS 1), taking into account the die roll modifiers listed. The results of the table are applied as follows:
- xE: Ecuadorean advance: advance the marker x spaces towards the Peruvian end.
- xP: Peruvian advance: advance the marker x spaces towards the Ecuadorean end.
A player can always negate an enemy advance by disrupting one of his units (or eliminating it if already disrupted). Then, the other player can disrupt one of his units (or eliminating it if already disrupted) to advance anyway. (So if the enemy disrupts one of his units the advance takes place regardless the disruption of the other player.)
When, as a result of an advance, the marker should go beyond the last space of the track (in either direction), flip the marker to its "OP ended" side. From this point on, this track is blocked in its current position and no further checks will be made.
EXAMPLE: It's turn 8 and the Amazonian Outposts front has not moved, despite reinforcements sent there by both players. As the game is nearing its end and the current position of the marker would give -1 VP, the Peruvian player wants to advance. During this turn he has sent one infantry unit there. During the Other Fronts resolution phase, either player rolls a die and cross-checks the result in the Other Fronts table (PAS 1). As PER has 4 strength points and ECU 2, the column to be used is the "2" column (4-2), without any modifier. The result is a 5, which gives the result "1P": the marker advances one space towards the ECU end. The ECU player decides to disrupt his unit there to negate the advance. Now the PER player decides to disrupt one of his units as well to advance anyway. Having advanced, now the PER player hopes to reach the last space in the following turns, which would give +1 VP.
17. Victory points tally
First, during this phase of each turn (last one included), brown-colored VPs are awarded. These VPs are added to the VPs from the previous turn, moving the VP marker accordingly in the VP track. Note that these VP are always negative (favoring the Ecuadorean player), so you must use the "negative" side of the VP marker. Note as well that these VPs are located in areas along the border and are awarded only if they are under Ecuadorean control.
Then, after awarding brown-colored VPs, if it's the last turn, the violet-colored VPs are awarded, moving the VP marker accordingly.
If the VPs go from negative to positive just flip the VP marker to its positive side. Note also that although most of these VPs are positive, some of them are negative (e.g., in the Arroyo track and the Other Fronts tracks).
18. End of turn
18.1. End of naval patrols
Place all naval units currently in the Golfo de Guayaquil box in their respective Spent boxes.
18.2. Markers
If the Arroyo marker is on its "Pressed" side, flip it to the "Arroyo del Río" side.
Then, if there is a "Road connection" marker on its "Road works" side with an engineer unit, flip the marker to its "Road works" side and place the engineer unit in any of the connected areas.
Source note: the printed text in this subsection says to flip the "Road connection" marker to its "Road works" side, but section 10.2 says the marker is flipped to its "Road connect." side at the end of the turn. The printed wording is kept here; section 10.2 describes the intended flip.
18.3. Turn advance or game end
If it's not the last turn, advance the turn marker to the next turn on the track and begin a new turn.
If it's the last turn, the final VP value is assessed against the turn in which the game has ended, as explained in section 3 "How to win":
- VP-Turn # > 1: Peruvian victory
- VP-Turn # = 1, 0, -1: Draw
- VP-Turn # < -1: Ecuadorean victory
Historical background
The border dispute between Peru and Ecuador has been the longest in the American continent and the last to be resolved, as late as 1998. Its roots lay in the process of independence of the Latin American countries from Spain. During this process it was generally agreed that the borders between the newly created republics should follow the previous administrative borders of viceroyalties and audiencias of the Spanish colonial administration, but the fact was that in many places the limits were quite loosely defined. This lack of precise delimitation is understandable: as the zones considered were usually very remote, far away from the administrative centers and sparsely populated, their interest for the Spanish Crown was minimal and, in fact, the effective Spanish sovereignty there was tenuous at best. In other words, why bother to accurately mark boundaries between provinces in remote areas that no one cared about?
This problem is typical of many border conflicts in Latin America, but as Saint John (1999) points out, "if the Ecuador-Peru question was at all unique, it was in its complexity, duration, and intensity."
The case of both countries
The present-day Republic of Ecuador corresponds approximately to the Real Audiencia de Quito, created by Royal Charter (Real Cédula) in 1563, with somewhat imprecise borders, and as a part of the Viceroyalty of Peru. In 1717 the new Viceroyalty of New Granada was created, encompassing all the northern parts of the Viceroyalty of Peru, including the Real Audiencia de Quito, a separation confirmed in another charter of 1739. Then, in 1802, the Spanish Crown issued a cédula which split the provinces of Mainas and Quijos from the Audience of Quito, and added them to the Viceroyalty of Peru. The authenticity of this cédula has been put in doubt and anyway the lack of clarity within the document as to whether the transfer of administrative power was purely military and ecclesiastical in nature, or territorial and political as well, further complicates the case.
Right after reaching the independence from Spain in 1822, the main territories of the Real Audiencia de Quito joined the Republic of Colombia (now usually known as Gran Colombia to differentiate it from the present-day Republic of Colombia). The Gran Colombian state was short-lived and in 1830 split in the present-day republics of Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. Under the agreed principle of uti possidetis iuris ("as you possess by law"), Ecuador based its case in the cédulas of 1563, 1717, 1739 and 1740, according to which the zones of Tumbes, Jaén and Mainas should belong to Ecuador (see map on the next page). Peru, on the other hand, argued that the higher principle of self-determination should prevail, and in fact at the independence, representatives from the three zones joined the Peruvian Congress, not the Colombian one, hence expressing their desire to be part of the Republic of Peru. Moreover, Peru also showed the cédula of 1802 as proof that, anyway, the lands had ceased to be part of the Audience of Quito before the independence (however, the controversial nature of the text harmed more than helped the Peruvian arguments).
The first treaties
The first peace treaty between the republics of Colombia and Peru was concluded in 1829, right after a war in which Peru tried to seize the port of Guayaquil. The so-called Larrea-Gual Treaty recognized as the boundary the limits of the old Viceroyalties of Peru and Nueva Granada, but did not establish what these boundaries were, task that was left to a joint commission. To complicate matters, during the works of the commission, in 1830, the Gran Colombia split into the three successor states of Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. That fact gave Peru the opportunity of refusing the terms of the Larrea-Gual Treaty and raised the question of whether Ecuador was entitled to inherit legitimately the legal agreements reached by Gran Colombia.
At this point the highly controversial Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol enters scene. According to Ecuador and Colombia, this protocol was agreed by the foreign ministers of both countries in August 1830 and established a definitive boundary as a result of the works of the aforementioned commission. Peru has always doubted the authenticity of the document, and argued that, anyway, it could not be a valid treaty as in August 1830 the Colombian foreign minister represented a state that no longer existed. Adding to that, Peru pointed out that this treaty was never approved by the Peruvian nor the Ecuadorian Congresses and remained unknown until 1904 in the Colombian diplomatic archives.
(Map: disputed territories around 1830. Maximum extent of the disputed territories (green) between the Republics of Gran Colombia (yellowish) and Peru (reddish) around the time of the split-up of Gran Colombia. The main zones were the coastal area from Tumbes to Montecristi, including Guayaquil, the Jaén area (the southern bulge) and the huge Mainas Amazonian territories, with key navigable rivers, many of which tributaries of the Amazon. Present-day borders are marked in a dash-dotted red line. The easternmost bulge between Colombia, Peru and Brazil was the stage for the Leticia War of 1932. Adapted from Milenioscuro, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.)
The 19th century
During the next years the dispute remained but no legal actions took place. In 1857, the Ecuadorian move of adjudicating Amazonian lands to Great Britain as payment for international debt, led Peru to occupy briefly the city of Guayaquil in 1859, amidst a state of almost civil war in Ecuador. Anyway, whatever the legal claims of both countries, the fact is that during the second half of the 19th century Peru exercised effective sovereignty on the lands of Tumbes and Jaén and advanced in a clear use, exploration, population and exploitation of the main rivers in the Amazonian zone of Mainas. While Ecuador remained passive arguing with legal matters, Peru took a more practical approach and went on exercising an effective sovereignty on the territory. This way, to the arguments of uti possidetis iuris which favored it, Peru added clear arguments of uti possidetis de facto for a future definitive agreement.
And the next opportunity for an agreement came in 1887, when the two governments signed the Espinosa-Bonifaz Convention, which submitted the dispute to the King of Spain for his arbitration. Ultimately the King of Spain declined, but the agreement led to bilateral talks which produced the García-Herrera Treaty, in May 1890. This treaty was quite favorable to Ecuador, as it gave sovereignty over extensive parts of Mainas and a long exit to the Marañón river (and hence to the Amazon). With Peru weakened by the recent War of the Pacific and focused in the dispute with Chile, the treaty seemed a good solution. The treaty was quickly ratified by the Ecuadorian Congress, but to the Peruvian Congress it seemed too much and introduced great modifications. Without agreement, then, the problem was again submitted to arbitration to the King of Spain in 1904. The Spanish award was presented in 1910 and was a middle-ground between the García-Herrera Treaty and the modifications introduced by the Peruvian Congress. But now it was Ecuador's turn to turn down the agreement; in fact the tension escalated and both countries assumed a war footing, but the mediation of Argentina, Brazil and the United States kept the peace. Maybe the Spanish Award of 1910 was the best opportunity for reaching an agreement favorable to both parties: "While the projected award was favorable to Peru, the King of Spain awarded Ecuador much more territory than it was to receive in the 1942 Rio Protocol some three decades later" (Saint John, 1999).
The road to war and the status quo line
If all that was not enough, now a third party entered the discussion: Colombia. In 1916 Ecuador and Colombia signed the Muñoz-Vernaza Treaty, which settled any differences in the boundaries between these two countries and gave Colombia large territories south of the Putumayo river. The problem was that many of the territory concerned was in the disputed zone between Ecuador and Peru. Then, in 1922, Colombia and Peru signed the Salomón-Lozano Treaty by which almost all the land ceded by Ecuador to Colombia in the Muñoz-Vernaza Treaty was now ceded by Colombia to Peru, in return for granting Colombia access to the Amazon river. As could be expected, the news on this treaty caused outrage in Ecuador.
In 1933 talks were renewed in Lima between Ecuador and Peru, but broke down in 1935, only to be retaken in July 1936 in Washington, with the United States acting as arbitrator. During these talks Peru defined the boundary that soon afterwards became known as the status quo line. This boundary was clearly a de facto boundary between the countries based on the effective sovereignty they exercised on the territory at that time.
The war of 1941 and the Rio Protocol
Since 1939 incidents along the approximate location of the status quo line increased, with each country trying to establish outposts and asserting its claims. This escalation in skirmishes and in propaganda, however, was quite differently backed up by each government. The situation was worrying enough for both sides, but while Peru mobilized its army and built up men and resources near its northern frontier, culminating in the creation in January 1941 of the Agrupamiento del Norte, Ecuador showed a surprisingly passive behavior.
The Ecuadorean government did not prepare for war in any way, although skirmishes along the border were more and more frequent. The reasons behind this attitude are not clear, but the political weakness of the government had a clear role. The President Carlos Arroyo del Río (1940-1944) had risen to power in 1940 and his popular support was minimal; moreover, because of his enmity with the army, military matters during his government were focused in weakening the possibility of a coup d'état by the army. During his term and that of his predecessor, Aurelio Mosquera (1938-1939), the budget of the army steadily fell, maneuvers were reduced and no reinforcements were sent to the border forces, despite clear evidence of the Peruvian build-up near the frontier and the requests of the army commander Francisco Urrutia. Even more, some officers were imprisoned. The result was that when hostilities broke out, there were too few units in the border zones, and those present were undersupplied and understrength, there were no reserves nor replacements ready for action, the state of the navy was abysmal and the air force was almost non-existent.
Peru, on the other hand, was well-prepared. The defeat suffered against Colombia in the Leticia War of 1932-1933 was a trigger for president Oscar Benavides (1933-1939) for improving the armed forces and the communications and means of transport to the border zones. As already commented, the creation of the Agrupamiento del Norte is evidence enough for the seriousness with which Peru took the possibility of a war with its northern neighbor. One can debate whether this mobilization was an aggressive stance or just a preventive measure, but the fact is that when hostilities opened Peru was fully prepared for war, ready to strike. According to some scholars, the president Prado Ugarteche (1939-1945) ordered General Eloy Ureta to keep a defensive stance, but Ureta wanted a more aggressive military campaign.
The outbreak of hostilities is not clear, with contradictory accounts about who fired first. Whatever the reality, the Peruvian army advanced and captured the first Ecuadorean posts along the Zarumilla line. The fighting those first days of July was intense, but Peruvian units were not able (or did not want?) to advance beyond the first Ecuadorean positions, despite its numerical and material superiority. After the first week, a lull in the combats ensued, with some skirmishes here and there, which lasted until 22nd July, when Peru began an offensive in earnest all along the front, now much more resolved to occupy and hold ground. After ten more days of fighting Peru had occupied almost all the coastal province of El Oro, and had advanced well into the Andean province of Loja, threatening the provincial capital. In the Amazonian sector, Peruvian troops had also advanced along the rivers and occupied some Ecuadorean outposts. A cease-fire was agreed for the 31st July, but scattered combats and movement of troops into enemy held zones went on during most August and September, especially in the battles of Cune-Porotillo (11th September) and Panupali (18 September). As usual in this war, it is not clear who first broke the cease-fire in the actions.
(Map: border situation around 1936. The map shows the approximate delimitation of the updated García-Herrera treaty according to the King of Spain award (dotted green line), the approximate 1936 status quo line (dashed blue line) and the present-day borders, roughly corresponding to the 1942 Rio Protocol (dash-dotted red line). Also shown are the Lagartococha and Cordillera del Cóndor sectors, which were to be still problematic after the signature of the Rio Protocol. The present-day border was not fully agreed until the Brasilia Agreement in 1998, after the Cenepa War. Adapted from Saint John (1999).)
Faced with a potential source of instability in America while US-Japanese relations were deteriorating quickly, the governments of Argentina, Brazil and the United States worked to reach a peaceful settlement. The first result was the signature of an armistice on 2nd October between representatives of Peru and Ecuador. Afterwards, peace negotiations began in Rio de Janeiro in January 1942, which resulted in the Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Boundaries, usually known as the Rio Protocol, ratified on 31st March. The protocol established a boundary which closely followed the status quo line of 1936, called for a withdrawal of all forces from the disputed zones and for a commission of experts to definitely mark the boundary and resolve any disagreements. The guarantor countries (USA, Brazil, Argentina and Chile) agreed to give the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Oswaldo Aranha, a leading role, due to his experience in boundary issues.
The nullity thesis
Right from the start, the boundary established by the Protocol was subject to hot discussions. Not less than eight conflicting zones appeared between Ecuador and Peru in fixing the frontier line. Thanks to Aranha's mediation, most disputes were settled quickly, but two of them were to become conflicting points during the next fifty years: the Lagartococha sector in the north and especially the Cordillera del Cóndor in the south.
The protocol established that the boundary in the Cordillera del Cóndor sector should follow the divortium aquarum (the watershed) between the Zamora and Santiago rivers. Mapping works on site proved that the geography of the zone was much more complex than previously thought and the watershed could not be clearly defined. To settle the question, in 1946, the US Air Force offered its services for an aerial survey. This survey proved to be a tough mission, with two crashes and 14 airmen dead, but was finally completed in autumn 1946 although some zones remained unmarked.
That was the excuse Ecuador was looking forward to for rejecting the Rio Protocol and renegotiating the boundary line. While in 1951 Galo Plaza Lasso's government just considered that the discrepancy entailed Ecuador the right not to accept the boundary, in 1960 José María Velasco Ibarra, a populist and charismatic president, declared that the entire protocol was null and void, incapable of execution, and that Ecuador and Peru should return to the 1829 treaty as a starting point.
The last wars and the peace
Diplomatic movements went on during the 60's and 70's without any clear result. The continuous game of establishing military outposts in the poorly delimitated border zone led to two brief but intense conflicts: the Conflict of Paquisha in 1981 and the Cenepa War in 1995. As expected, these two clashes did not change the situation.
Nevertheless, the Cenepa War was a turning point. Right after the conflict, the Itamaraty Declaration was signed on 17 February 1995, which provided a framework for establishing a cease-fire and demobilization and for resolving any remaining disagreements. The following diplomatic process was slow but goodwill from both parties was usually the norm and, although from time to time tensions rose in the border regions, it led to the Global and Definitive Peace Agreement concluded in Brasilia in October 1998, which put an end to this long and costly border conflict.
Design notes
The Ecuadorean-Peruvian war is a conflict with quite particular features. Firstly, it was fought over a wide area along the Peru-Ecuador border, but it consisted in very localized clashes, around outposts and involving limited numbers of men. The only zone in which there was a long front and many battalions involved was the coastal front in the Ecuadorean province of El Oro. This fact posed a problem of scale: a great scale for representing all the front in which the clashes occurred meant a very gross approach unable to represent the type of operations of this war. On the other hand, the choice of a very small scale, able to faithfully reproduce the conditions in the coastal front, limited a full apprehension of the conflict as a whole, especially important in a so less-known conflict, which even the most hardcore wargamers are not familiar with, if even known at all. Finally we opted for an area-based map representing the coastal front between Tumbes and Machala.
Related with the problem of scale is the problem of the unit size to be represented in a standard counter. The main operational unit in this war was the infantry battalion and that was the obvious choice. But, again except in the coastal zone, these battalions were often divided in many detachments scattered along various border outposts.
Another feature of the war relates to the time scale. This war saw moments of intense fighting followed by days and weeks of relative calm. After the Peruvian offensive of the end of July a cease-fire was agreed, although minor skirmishes went on during August and September. Moreover, the Loja and Amazonian fronts saw action at different times. Representing all the time frame would have led to too lengthy turns, so we focused just on the main campaign during July and included in the same time frame, although in a more abstract manner, the operations in the two other fronts.
The balance of forces is another interesting aspect to consider. The war in this zone was clearly a one-sided affair in favor of Peru. That's clearly an "against the odds" case for the Ecuadorean player and the victory conditions reflect this: a better than historical performance for Ecuador gives him a marginal victory (of course the Ecuadorean player still can attempt to go on the offensive for a decisive victory, if he feels strong enough, although we advise not to do so). A problem with the Ecuadorean player is that Arroyo's government was completely passive before the outbreak of hostilities and remained so afterwards, so we considered that including the possibility of a more active Arroyo, pressed by the military staff, was a must; the final defeat of Ecuadorean troops in the last days of July could have been averted only by bringing the troops stationed in the sierra.
From the Peruvian point of view, although the simulation could appear as a steamroller all the way up to Machala, the tough facts of the conflict will show otherwise. As in real life, the advance is not as easy as it might seem. Occupying Guayaquil was the most ambitious objective, and it was only considered by the Peruvian army after the July cease-fire, in case Ecuador did not accept the resolutions of the observer countries. The occupation of the sierra beyond Loja and perhaps Cuenca, with Quito as a final objective, was out of the question. So, all these possibilities are not even considered in the game.
All in all, usually the plays give a more intense war than the real one, as the players have none of the restrains and fears of the political and military actors of that conflict, nor any of their responsibilities!
The bibliography on the boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru and on the wars of 1941, 1981 and 1995 is usually quite biased in favor of one or the other country. Good, detailed, and neutral sources are somewhat difficult to reach, although an acceptable, introductory and neutral summary can be found in the English Wikipedia. A very useful and researched review of the overall dispute is Saint John (1999) and references therein, while De La Pedraja (2006) and Wood (1978) give detailed and non-biased accounts of the war of 1941. That does not mean one cannot use Ecuadorean and Peruvian sources; there are quite good and detailed books and papers by Ecuadorean and Peruvian authors, but, except the more recent works, almost all suffer from biased points of view, and they must always be taken with a grain of salt and contrasted with their counterparts from the other side.
If you read Spanish and make some searches on Internet, be warned: you will enter a can of worms. In some Internet fora on Latin American military affairs you can find useful data, not easily found elsewhere, but usually buried under tons of heated debates and always to be contrasted to a reliable source. In the years passed since we began to outline the first ideas about this game (around 2005!), it seems that the more hardcore partisans on Internet and social media have slowly faded away. After all, almost 30 years have passed since the last war and the younger generations do not seem interested in the conflict nor in a border conflict that now seems pointless.
References
AYALA Mora, E. (ed.), Nueva Historia del Ecuador (11 volumes). Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional / Grijalbo, 1988-1995.
BASADRE, J., Historia de la República del Perú (16 volumes). Lima: Editorial Universitaria, 1968.
BJERKE, J. C., Border Mapping Project. Bethesda: National Imagery and Mapping Agency. https://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP562/p562.htm
BOWMAN, I., "The Ecuador-Peru Border Dispute", Foreign Affairs, 20, 4 (July 1942), 757-761.
DE LA BARRA, F., El conflicto peruano-ecuatoriano y la victoriosa campaña de 1941 en las fronteras de Zarumilla y Nor-Oriente. Lima: Centro de Estudios Militares del Perú, 1969.
DE LA PEDRAJA, R., Wars of Latin America, 1899-1941. Jefferson: McFarland, 2006.
DELGADO, L. H., Las guerras del Perú. Lima: Torres-Aguirre, 1944.
GANDARA ENRÍQUEZ, M., El Ecuador del año 1941 y el Protocolo de Río. Quito: Centro de Estudios Históricos del Ejército, 2000.
HERZ, M.; NOGUEIRA, J., Ecuador vs. Peru: Peacemaking amid Rivalry. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002.
LARREA ALBA, L., La campaña de 1941: la agresión peruana al Ecuador, sus antecedentes históricos, políticos y militares. Quito: Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, 1964.
MACÍAS, E., El ejército ecuatoriano en la campaña internacional de 1941 y la post-guerra. Quito: Centro de Estudios Históricos del Ejército, 2008.
MARIÁTEGUI, S., Conflicto peruano-ecuatoriano de 1941. Lima, 1968.
MCBRIDE, G., "Ecuador-Peru Boundary Settlement". Washington: US Department of State, 1949. (typescript; unpublished report to US Secretary of State)
OCHOA, O., Tragedia ecuatoriana, 1941. Quito: Gráficas Chimborazo, 1976.
PALMER, D. S., "Peru-Ecuador Border Conflict: Missed Opportunities, Misplaced Nationalism, and Multilateral Peacekeeping", Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 39, 3 (autumn 1997), 109-148.
PAREJA DIEZCANSECO, A., Historia de la República. Quito: El Conejo, 1986.
RODRÍGUEZ, J., Las operaciones navales durante el conflicto con Ecuador de 1941. Callao: Marina de guerra del Perú, 2008.
SAINT JOHN, R. B., "Conflict in the Cordillera del Cóndor: The Ecuador-Peru Dispute", IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Spring 1996.
SAINT JOHN, R. B., The Ecuador-Peru Boundary Dispute: The Road to Settlement (Boundary and Territory Briefing 3, 1). Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, 1999.
SIMMONS, B. A., Territorial Disputes and Their Resolution. The Case of Ecuador and Peru (Peaceworks 27). Washington: United States Institute of Peace, 1999.
TINCOPA, A., Air wars between Ecuador and Peru (volume 1: the July 1941 war). Warwick: Helion & Co, 2019.
TOBAR DONOSO, J., La invasión peruana y el Protocolo de Río. Quito: Editorial Ecuatoriana, 1945.
VARIOUS AUTHORS, Atlas universal y del Ecuador. Quito: Instituto Geográfico Militar, 2005.
VARIOUS AUTHORS, Historia general del Ejército ecuatoriano. Quito: Centro de Estudios del Ejército, 2005-2010.
WOOD, B., Aggression and History: The Case of Ecuador and Peru. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1978.