tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19989675458047837542024-03-14T02:11:18.395-07:00Solo BattlesA blog for developing my thoughts on gaming mechanisms for solo miniatures and board gaming. Solo gaming mechanics, campaign rules, and battle reports illustrating the use of the mechanics will all be a part of the blog.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-80983842370999298662023-10-05T10:08:00.001-07:002023-10-05T10:08:17.189-07:00Haywire Rules - A Discussion<p> Hey everyone. I know it has been a long time since my last blog post. Honestly it is because I have been pretty consistent in getting face-to-face games lately, plus some computer games, plus wrapping up my work (as I am retired now).</p><h1 style="text-align: left;">Haywire</h1>
<p>In this post I want to discuss the solo mechanics in the rule <i>Haywire</i>, which <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AL0gVQLK8ni3NPic9BCdZBnCYnffKOWY" target="_blank">are free and in beta</a>. This is not a review of the rules themselves as I have not fully read the rules, nor played them, but I have learned enough about them from <a href="https://youtu.be/KkObjU78CGw?si=nlO1KLYXBrS_-TwT" target="_blank">this video play</a> through to discuss some of the solo/cooperative game mechanics. (By the way, the video is hilarious as the author is trying to explain the basics of the game, but you can tell he gets a bit invested in the scenario and his luck is both fantastically good and bad.) This discussion is largely based on the video, but in some cases I followed up by finding a specific rule in the PDF.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkLfI3GpWi1R2jxsKfM1rK4ZRo0_WnjUUQUkTfQkq4kYeidB7uUmXg5F-GCn0wdXOrBrl3OBVKfSBKJi7BfmZ8FM7K_Y8v2Ld2uybBx9yOzfxRKHIyYlZTNuBHDvLHFK9dckPSI7N5kA8kZPKAdeBGnc4sYrFo-y9CjiQoBTH-gQa8-lPToQLLScrR-EBI/s683/Cover.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="485" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkLfI3GpWi1R2jxsKfM1rK4ZRo0_WnjUUQUkTfQkq4kYeidB7uUmXg5F-GCn0wdXOrBrl3OBVKfSBKJi7BfmZ8FM7K_Y8v2Ld2uybBx9yOzfxRKHIyYlZTNuBHDvLHFK9dckPSI7N5kA8kZPKAdeBGnc4sYrFo-y9CjiQoBTH-gQa8-lPToQLLScrR-EBI/w454-h640/Cover.png" width="454" /></a></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">How is the Scenario Determined?</h2>
<p><i>Haywire</i> divides the board up into 12" (30cm) squares. For each of those squares you will have one threat token representing possible enemy forces (PEF), with a minimum of ten tokens. So a 3' square board would have ten threat tokens, a 4' square board would have 16, and so on. The author, in the video, used red plastic silhouettes of soldiers for the threat tokens, which was very effective in quickly identifying where the threats were located, when it came time to interact with them.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfRhZk3YEml0CNxoQGsQHQRd3dpqdTqgHgw5JLnUIAJTBerdvcVbZrtpTOKHpZr773imTWGjK5hwwFfVuzT67vAqXedpDlX647CQCFh74J5V_JwXIjRP2QqYe1_aSTOshfODEtdjh-xObLTN8Ei58gSsl8_DAQE4NhcQr14qQt9kHpfcmNRJiXcEXWmZ8S/s705/RedSilhouette.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="151" data-original-width="705" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfRhZk3YEml0CNxoQGsQHQRd3dpqdTqgHgw5JLnUIAJTBerdvcVbZrtpTOKHpZr773imTWGjK5hwwFfVuzT67vAqXedpDlX647CQCFh74J5V_JwXIjRP2QqYe1_aSTOshfODEtdjh-xObLTN8Ei58gSsl8_DAQE4NhcQr14qQt9kHpfcmNRJiXcEXWmZ8S/w640-h138/RedSilhouette.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>What the rules do <i>not</i> specify is what the board looks like, i.e. the terrain. I have noticed this in a number of scenarios lately where the scenario authors are specifying deployment zones, objective locations, and such, but only a basic description of the terrain and layout. Is this good? Is it because players skip over scenarios that use terrain setups they don't have?</p><p><i>Haywire</i> is the same in that it does not specify the terrain <u>at all</u>. You are free to setup the table however you wish. It simply states that the board should have "enough terrain and scatter to block LOS" (line of sight).</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">How is the Mission Determined?</h2>
<p>One thing that most rules lack are good missions, included with the rules. <i>Haywire</i> comes with 23 (to start with, as this is still beta).</p>
<p>There are a number of card decks that you use in <i>Haywire</i> and one of them is the <i>Operations</i> deck. (The rules include separate images of the cards so you can print them out.) Fortunately, they also include a separate PDF listing out the 23 missions so you don't need to print out the deck. The author has stated that this is one area that will continue to expand as he thinks up more mission types.</p><p>Let's start by discussing a couple of example missions.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGjd-HyBosP5xzEjnss2KmUVTBWh_-IKLcP1XeeGP5b-1ENZ2JdVpc0gZCAMNbgPrya9dYr5oVOD_2TYV0vEQDmWYEs3fsAlrKZg1_RFq1f0dyfBVNusBPojdXw3gL6Q62jN9ay9kgUIj6lUzAY-cQY9p6_N0jTIr_Tw0vDi0gC5PMiDs5hqFWV54g7fd3/s565/Mission1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="124" data-original-width="565" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGjd-HyBosP5xzEjnss2KmUVTBWh_-IKLcP1XeeGP5b-1ENZ2JdVpc0gZCAMNbgPrya9dYr5oVOD_2TYV0vEQDmWYEs3fsAlrKZg1_RFq1f0dyfBVNusBPojdXw3gL6Q62jN9ay9kgUIj6lUzAY-cQY9p6_N0jTIr_Tw0vDi0gC5PMiDs5hqFWV54g7fd3/w640-h140/Mission1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>Every "operation" (mission) contains an objective and setup instructions. As you can see with this mission the opposing forces include a surface-to-air missile launcher and the team is sent to destroy it. The setup instructions tell you to place three objective tokens in the open, some additional parameters to the mission (no support), and how to destroy the objective.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8NwWmoHyULLeoVwckayPR4a8RWSCG9mRzQFMIhayAvlY0dv3bQlqPNjHhYmXWW3qzq31Daa9QUl4_alej9-HeXg_LSBUh6XwW9CFHUNVwTpIcdhSRT6ig_4zQtwriCSTJuGgjByIskG7RjGQxjlsCrHcZnann-7uGzfFZytbJKI2nVAVrJh1ui_a5W1sd/s596/Mission2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="63" data-original-width="596" height="68" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8NwWmoHyULLeoVwckayPR4a8RWSCG9mRzQFMIhayAvlY0dv3bQlqPNjHhYmXWW3qzq31Daa9QUl4_alej9-HeXg_LSBUh6XwW9CFHUNVwTpIcdhSRT6ig_4zQtwriCSTJuGgjByIskG7RjGQxjlsCrHcZnann-7uGzfFZytbJKI2nVAVrJh1ui_a5W1sd/w640-h68/Mission2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>This mission, which was the one played in the video, calls for finding and eliminating the enemy leader.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">How are the Opposing Forces Selected?</h2><p>There are three "factions" defined in <i>Haywire</i>: (Western) Task Force, (Russian) Spetsnaz, and Insurgent. Interestingly, the first two are player factions, so no US versus Russia missions are defined in these rules.</p><p><i>Haywire</i> bills itself as using <i>classes</i>, which are essentially profiles that you use for figures. The player factions have classes for Demolition, Automatic Rifleman, Marksman, Medic, Assault, and Team Leader. We will look at their profiles later. The <i>Insurgent</i> faction has the profiles Fighter, Gunner, Sniper, Rocketeer, True Believer (complete with bomb vest), Advisor, Executioner, and Cell Leader.</p><p>The next step is to create the <i>Threat deck</i>. Included in the game are two <i>1 Enemy</i>, four <i>2 Enemies</i>, four <i>3 Enemies</i>, one <i>3 Enemies, 1 Leader</i>, four <i>Nothing</i>, and four <i>Civilian</i> cards. You remove the one <i>3 Enemies, 1 Leader</i> card and shuffle the rest. You then draw one card for every threat token, less one (for the card you have set aside). Those cards, plus the <i>3 Enemies, 1 Leader</i> card, become the threat deck.</p>
<p>Whenever a threat token is then spotted by a player's figure, a card is drawn from the deck to determine what figures replace the threat token. If the card is one of the "enemy" cards, for each enemy figure you roll one D20 and look on the following table to determine what profile to use for that figure.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKJ5NQ0WuvfMFtm9Q_naHiVD3KDbjUJaxn677QMpL2c2RFV5-J7SZE0c6VZ-ey80FmxA6HE15-KVsFnU-XTl6zfu1aLHkiMhJSUAGJDqlqcqf8eiF9FHjYuOaEuKbyVCeAQ3SApJdfJHH3r_vP9xaINOLruKuED8OtsCXMebKk642iPIJP8YJBk1Q4WiYo/s1772/21.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1181" data-original-width="1772" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKJ5NQ0WuvfMFtm9Q_naHiVD3KDbjUJaxn677QMpL2c2RFV5-J7SZE0c6VZ-ey80FmxA6HE15-KVsFnU-XTl6zfu1aLHkiMhJSUAGJDqlqcqf8eiF9FHjYuOaEuKbyVCeAQ3SApJdfJHH3r_vP9xaINOLruKuED8OtsCXMebKk642iPIJP8YJBk1Q4WiYo/w640-h426/21.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">How are the Opposing Forces' Movement Determined?</h2>
<p>There are five types of movement: threat tokens before the alarm is raised; threat tokens after the alarm is raised; enemy figures before the alarm is raised; enemy figures after the alarm is raised; and civilians.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Threat Token Before the Alarm is Raised</h3>
<p>After the players take their movement the threat tokens are moved. If the alarm has not been raised a scatter die (the die on the left in the image below) and a D6 are rolled for each token. The token is moved D6 inches in the direction indicated by the scatter die.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmVjrfXKjlG1PQjQQERu5KGe_aAeRDAzPGJAMhWBwnnoBljf3I8WKPalKvZSV9PXh7DNNjhQfkVP4rCVUddy33OU-6OXRrw7hvZ40MSlFcT34SUSbGl2mBRLzoNnELV_jnt3p-oevKw9TLBTtxR_LEBbpOzk-8ODjdEB0DlRwzgbeQYa19qWStt45NJWvx/s1799/ScatterDice.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1297" data-original-width="1799" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmVjrfXKjlG1PQjQQERu5KGe_aAeRDAzPGJAMhWBwnnoBljf3I8WKPalKvZSV9PXh7DNNjhQfkVP4rCVUddy33OU-6OXRrw7hvZ40MSlFcT34SUSbGl2mBRLzoNnELV_jnt3p-oevKw9TLBTtxR_LEBbpOzk-8ODjdEB0DlRwzgbeQYa19qWStt45NJWvx/s320/ScatterDice.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<p>Although random movement may seem rather nonsensical – guards don't walk in a different direction <u>every</u> turn, at differing speeds – it is better to view it as the player's perception of where they think the threat, which is out of line of sight, is really located. At least that is how I justify the mechanic.</p><p>If the threat token wanders into the line of sight of the player's figures, the threat deck is immediately consulted to see what the actually threat is, rolling on the <i>Insurgent</i> table to determine exactly which figure(s) to put on the board. Remember, it may consist of one or more enemies, a civilian, or nothing. If they are enemy, they first test to see if they detect the player's figure(s) by rolling a D20. If they do they may immediately act. (Note that player figures on overwatch may act first.)</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Threat Token After the Alarm is Raised</h3>
<p>Once an unsuppressed weapon is fired or one of the player's figures are spotted (not just in line of sight) the alarm is raised on the whole board. Once that happens each threat token moves 6" directly towards the sound of gunfire. As above, when the threat token comes within line of sight of a player's figure a card from the threat deck is drawn and any figures are rolled for and placed on the board.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Enemy Figures Before the Alarm is Raised</h3>
<p>It is possible for a figure to be placed, but it not have been alerted to the player's figure's presence (it missed its spotting roll) <u>and</u> for the alarm to not have been raised. In those rare circumstances the procedure is actually undefined.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo41BDo5Dnw9HBPrWBpyaeOGo3JNPl0VW8VvOtMXJhJMCTLhs4EaHP1zErbreir4nuVOjuh3YHQ_PUhQ92h3AjidRHzQhoI6y4FLiLtnoe0Ca2quAaFtEao5NbELlYjWSghgD018-w4cDNxNZtNwE80Q7D053e5a9XGZft0Y1WzjOrtF7KLxyNyJQEzeg5/s1772/19.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1181" data-original-width="1772" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo41BDo5Dnw9HBPrWBpyaeOGo3JNPl0VW8VvOtMXJhJMCTLhs4EaHP1zErbreir4nuVOjuh3YHQ_PUhQ92h3AjidRHzQhoI6y4FLiLtnoe0Ca2quAaFtEao5NbELlYjWSghgD018-w4cDNxNZtNwE80Q7D053e5a9XGZft0Y1WzjOrtF7KLxyNyJQEzeg5/w640-h426/19.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>As you can see in the image above, each <i>Insurgent</i> card has a short program to determine how it acts. The first question is: "Is there an enemy in LOS?" Because the figure failed the spotting roll the answer is "No". It then tells you what you should do in relation to the "last seen enemy or where the last gunshot was heard". But neither of those apply.</p>
<p>Thus, the question pops up as to what the figure does the following turns. Should we use the rule on page 11 that says "Once a model is alerted, he stops moving randomly on the board" to mean that, because he is not alerted, he continues moving randomly (D6 inches in random direction)?
My first inclination, before I found that reference, was that they would continue on in the direction they were facing until they hit the boundary of the area they were patrolling/guarding/defending and then at that point roll for a new direction. I would think that once a figure is revealed its movement might be more normalized.</p><p>Granted, this situation only arises when you are not spotted, but I could see where, if an enemy is walking away from you, and they failed to spot you, you might let them continue on. But if their movement is random every turn, you really can't take the chance and are almost forced to attack them. (In the video gameplay referenced above the author would always have multiple people on overwatch and they would pop anyone as soon as they were alerted.)</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Enemy Figures After the Alarm is Raised</h3>
<p>As shown in the image above, each figure "class" has its own program on how to act when the alarm has been raised. The first basic question is whether the enemy in in line of sight or not. If they are then it is generally whether the figure is in cover or not. (One exception is the <i>True Believer </i>card, which always moves towards the closest enemy, detonating his "S-Vest" when within range.) The second basic question is whether the figure is in cover or not.</p><p>Although simple, simple is good. There is enough of a foundation there if you want to add more factors to the program.</p><h1 style="text-align: left;">Summary</h1><div>There are a number of other elements that I could go on about, but you should check it out on your own. It is free after all. Then there is the unintentionally hilarious video by the author. Boy his luck is just plain bad at times!</div>Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-21701499253848267382022-06-14T13:00:00.005-07:002022-06-14T13:00:58.455-07:00Ambush on the Forest Road<p>This game comes from my map campaign. If you want to see how I generated the terrain, scenario, and various twists to the game, <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2022/06/map-campaign-part-4-other-updates-and.html" target="_blank">read my blog post about it</a>.</p>
<h1 style="text-align: left;">The Scenario</h1>
<p>As indicated in the other blog post, this battle will be fought out using <a href="https://www.amazon.com/One-hour-Wargames-Practical-Tabletop-Battles/dp/1473822904/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">Neil Thomas' <i>One-Hour Wargames</i> (OHW) rules</a>, which the basic scenario also comes from (a combination of scenario #6 Flank Attack (1) and scenario #13 Escape). As with the last <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-battle-of-firnskuppe.html" target="_blank">two</a> <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-second-battle-for-firnskuppe.html" target="_blank">battles</a>, I have added some twists to the game by using the <i>Kings of War Battlefield Cards</i> and the <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Age-Sigmar-WARCRY-BATTLEPLAN/dp/B07VBPLCGS/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">Warcry Battleplan Cards</a></i>.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhrdlv2z1oTOVFPv61o3Bw98Ki3TGyyhr-o0wbSZUwiPRY7kww7WSUQ_NpPmJtOvBjtJFiU0OCsJP-3jMo0XSWt1C69gBqg0AE-MbfGp2IJ0u54H9L520lT7fKiYfMlY6LycBn7_qE_z3VLOI29FKPo0Piv8PDttQ3JoRLe2lbv-I300fpxbe2xCQtdtw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhrdlv2z1oTOVFPv61o3Bw98Ki3TGyyhr-o0wbSZUwiPRY7kww7WSUQ_NpPmJtOvBjtJFiU0OCsJP-3jMo0XSWt1C69gBqg0AE-MbfGp2IJ0u54H9L520lT7fKiYfMlY6LycBn7_qE_z3VLOI29FKPo0Piv8PDttQ3JoRLe2lbv-I300fpxbe2xCQtdtw=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>In a nutshell, the Westonians (red) will be marching on the board, starting in C1. Because the force consists of Infantry, Artillery, and Cavalry all units are confined to the road if there are woods (light or dark green ovals) in the square. Their battleplan is to exploit the gaps in the woods (C1, C3, C6, and D1) to deploy troops and destroy the Eastonians.</p>
<p>The Eastonians have set up an ambush, however their forces consist solely of Hussars (skirmishing light cavalry). They can move through any square save the heavy woods (dark green ovals). Their battleplan is to ignore the minor victory objective (moving troops off of the board to the West) and fight as hard as possible in inflicting damage on the ambushed Westonian troops.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Scenario Special Rules</h2>
<p>There are a number of special rules for this scenario.</p>
<p>Artillery, Infantry and Cavalry on roads may move through woods squares, but because they cannot deploy into that terrain, they are limited in what they can while in those squares.</p>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Infantry may only fire from squares that are clear of woods terrain (light or heavy).</li><li>Cavalry may only charge from squares clear of terrain if the target of the charge is also in clear terrain, and all squares moved through are clear terrain.</li><li>Artillery may fire from clear terrain to any other square as long as they have line of sight from the center of their square to the center of the target square. Artillery may always fire on an adjacent square that they are facing, even if they are on a road going through the woods.</li></ul>
<p>The Westonians drew a useful Stratagem to use called <i>Sudden Faith</i>. It allows them to modify a die roll by 1 for an activation test (see Rules Changes below) for one unit, once. The Westonian player does not need to state before the die roll whether they will be using the stratagem, they simply declare when it will be used.</p><p>The twist to this scenario is that because the Westonians are largely trapped on a road moving through the woods, save for occasional clear areas, they will fight with <i>Battle Frenzy</i>, which in turn cause the Eastonians to fight with the same vigor and effectiveness. The effects of <i>Battle Frenzy</i> are as follows:</p>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Cavalry charging units in the open do so using the procedure indicated in the main rules.</li>
<li>Infantry may charge the enemy in the open or light woods, but do so inflicting 1D6-2 hits. If the enemy unit are Skirmishers or Hussars, they will retreat one square to their rear, otherwise the attacking Infantry must retreat if they did not destroy the enemy unit. If the enemy retreats or is destroyed, the Infantry take the square.</li>
<li>Cavalry may not charge the enemy in light or heavy woods.</li><li>Skirmishers may charge the enemy in any terrain other than impassable terrain. Hussars may charge the enemy in any terrain other than impassable or heavy woods terrain. Both unit types inflict 1D6-2 hits, but must retreat if they did not destroy the enemy unit.</li>
<li>Skirmishers and Hussars do not get half casualties in close combat, although Cavalry continues to get that benefit.</li>
</ul>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">One-Hour Wargames Rule Changes</h2><p>Generally speaking I don't like changing rules, but frequently do it, as it makes battle reports harder to understand by people that know the rules but do not know your changes, so I will list them out here, largely because I am doing some experimentation with these changes.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>As with all of my OHW games I play on a board marked out with a 6" square grid (six rows by six columns). Each unit is contained within a single square and each square contains only one unit. One day I will publish my grid rules, but for now just know that all measurements in OHW are converted to squares.</li><li>Skirmishers fire at 1D6-2, as normal, but their fire negates any cover bonus (half casualties).</li><li>Skirmishers receive half casualties, regardless of terrain, when fired upon by Infantry and Artillery.</li><li>Skirmishers receive double casualties in close combat with Cavalry.</li><li>Hussars are a new unit type that move 15", fire 1D6-2 out to 12", can interpenetrate and be interpenetrated by friendly units, receive half casualties from Infantry and Artillery fire, and can enter close combat with Skirmishers, Artillery, and Hussar inflicting 1D6-2 hits. Like Cavalry in close combat, unless they eliminate the unit they must retreat from close combat each turn.</li><li>OHW uses the concept of a standardized unit that is eliminated after having received 15 hits. I have reversed this concept in assigning a number of 'health' to a unit, indicating the number of hits it can take. Rather than adding hits to a unit from shooting or close combat, the hits are removed. This allows me to have non-standard units with more or less health than the standard 15, while still maintaining 15 as the standard for other rules, such as casualty recovery.</li><li>In OHW all units automatically act with full effectiveness, right up until the point they are eliminated. I am going to experiment with an activation roll of 1D10 each turn for each unit. If they roll less than or equal to their remaining health they can act as normal; if they roll greater they may not act at all that turn. This effectively allows a standard unit to act fully as long as they have not lost more than ⅓ effectiveness; after that they may falter in their actions.</li><li>When units are on a road in terrain they cannot normally move in, e.g. Infantry and Cavalry in woods, they are considered in 'march column'. Units firing or in close combat against units in march column get a bonus in combat: 1D6-2 becomes 1D6; 1D6 becomes 1D6+2; and 1D6+2 becomes 1D6x2.</li></ul><p></p><h1 style="text-align: left;">The Battle</h1><p>The battle will start with the Westonians (red) entering the board in C1. They will move 9" (1 ½ squares) down the road each turn until they move off the board via the road exit.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 1</h2><p>The first turn is rather uneventful, as you might imagine. As a note, when a unit moves in other than increments of 6" (the size of our squares) I usually mark them to show that they have additional movement that can carry over to the next turn. For example, the Red Infantry moving down the road has 9" or 1 ½ squares of movement. On the first turn they move 6" (one square) and gain a movement marker (green circle in the front-left corner) indicating that if they have 9" of movement next turn, they will me able to move 12" (9" + the previous 3") or two squares the next turn, at which time the marker will be removed.</p><p>The Blue Hussars, because they have a 15" movement, also receive a movement marker.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEithknGtNukhnIgK-LrgDFUZbaUha8emTrRK-0OEPraRREKUBCFsuzrHuKbemKnOe-icjTQujrNkkfaitkCMVRMBSNIVtBbEUESDdhvpPnAoTxV0xtYM8j8ekCkubTWVAdfxfyPTWYkhNBx9_3HFlkWHCMa2rBanaBZjSF0NN18z-NSoJsSyNYEZFLtiA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEithknGtNukhnIgK-LrgDFUZbaUha8emTrRK-0OEPraRREKUBCFsuzrHuKbemKnOe-icjTQujrNkkfaitkCMVRMBSNIVtBbEUESDdhvpPnAoTxV0xtYM8j8ekCkubTWVAdfxfyPTWYkhNBx9_3HFlkWHCMa2rBanaBZjSF0NN18z-NSoJsSyNYEZFLtiA=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 2</h2>
<p>Red troops continue to pile on while the Blue Hussars fires at the enemy, inflicting a heavy blow to their morale.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjeRsauU8xJq5slgrQWyeXWqSEl9zpEvch5vB_l3JXGsaS5IvvyU72rfaSu7AwpTsne_8_dBP_mgrx1O0XDMUaYLahIWGkTvRwUfCsY6SMJbI-NVkivs2VJx6TzxGUJIKHgCvB1gXMYGRd6tB8yPMovDhTOL-bCQBWvmWMjJ5JN18i7tST9hbz8ilfiZg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjeRsauU8xJq5slgrQWyeXWqSEl9zpEvch5vB_l3JXGsaS5IvvyU72rfaSu7AwpTsne_8_dBP_mgrx1O0XDMUaYLahIWGkTvRwUfCsY6SMJbI-NVkivs2VJx6TzxGUJIKHgCvB1gXMYGRd6tB8yPMovDhTOL-bCQBWvmWMjJ5JN18i7tST9hbz8ilfiZg=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>At this point it might be helpful to calculate the <i>Average Turns to Eliminate</i> or ATE of each side. I use this score to help me understand which action is the best to take. It helps me remove bias from my game play decisions.</p><p>At this point the Red Infantry is in a clear terrain square so it is deployed into line formation and can fire fully (1D6). However, the Blue Hussars are in cover, so casualties are halved. That allows Red to inflict about 2 hits per turn, so their ATE for the Blue Hussars is 9 (turns). If they charge into close combat they switch to 1D6-2 (ATE 18), so there is less reason to charge if the goal is to inflict maximum damage. However, Infantry force Hussars to retreat if charged, so this is a viable option.</p>
<p>When the Blue Hussars are firing 1D6-2, they inflict about 1.67 hits per turn so the ATE for the Red Infantry is also 9 turns. If the blue Hussars charge into close combat their dice is still 1D6-2, so there is no change. Unlike the charge of the Red Infantry, however, the Blue Hussars do not force back their enemy.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 3</h2>
<p>The Red Infantry has a choice: 1) stand and fire at the Blue Hussars (ATE 9), who also have an ATE of 9; or 2) charges the Blue Hussars in order to drive them back, while inflicting minor damage (ATE 18). Applying a 50% chance to each option Red chooses to drive Blue down the road.</p><p>The Red Infantry scores no hits, but pushed the Blue Hussars down the road (to C5). This must have been a planned feigned retreat because when the Red Infantry hits the woods (C4), the Blue Hussars counter-attacked. With the Red Infantry unable to deploy effectively (they count as in march column), the Blue Hussars inflict a heavy hit on the bunched up enemy.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiJPt4kHoTquIEwFwLI_nxxvDTesF_ucb9BvlA6vgS5G57jbqS7jhpWZHXiUQVktFRJBHl0pz7KWYnHuGGHrQjPkE7RF3QtnxtITsdwV8Oir5QFU-PL-pa3BhMdqV4oNYjK-EiflTGvY8BDe-GRCjlue5FEqOF60zkVRisjhgWhG3Q4qfrUUniAEAJVwg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1358" data-original-width="1412" height="614" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiJPt4kHoTquIEwFwLI_nxxvDTesF_ucb9BvlA6vgS5G57jbqS7jhpWZHXiUQVktFRJBHl0pz7KWYnHuGGHrQjPkE7RF3QtnxtITsdwV8Oir5QFU-PL-pa3BhMdqV4oNYjK-EiflTGvY8BDe-GRCjlue5FEqOF60zkVRisjhgWhG3Q4qfrUUniAEAJVwg=w640-h614" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><i>Solo Gamer's Notes: I actually played this out twice. The first time I had the Red Infantry stand and fire in C3 and they were eventually eliminated. At some point (turn 7?) I struck upon the option of charging to push the Blue Hussars off of the board and wondered if I should have tried that option. As I had forgotten to apply the Activation Rule, and that was the whole point of playing these experimental games, I decided to rewind back to this turn and dice to see which way Red would go.</i></p></blockquote>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 4</h2><p>With the Red Infantry at 5 hits they now have to roll to see if they activate. They roll a '10', so they do not! The Blue Hussars continue to fire away at the Red Infantry, whittling them down further. Meanwhile the column of Red forces have come to a halt.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEic0HK5OQwC0k1mb4K9ao_c6w4orBjBXku_I623jwQd0dWDIEQBzFQFGcDL-x9a2oyITfQFA9V0iyhOgj9nNcWCDva4e9e6XPXm8rK8RhwlkulC6YGs_4-lwWQklLwVaOT75oF4biE411nekobMjyi95sBKjoYqKYMBgsPKTwWqHwuf80fax-K6CPK-ew" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1349" data-original-width="1353" height="637" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEic0HK5OQwC0k1mb4K9ao_c6w4orBjBXku_I623jwQd0dWDIEQBzFQFGcDL-x9a2oyITfQFA9V0iyhOgj9nNcWCDva4e9e6XPXm8rK8RhwlkulC6YGs_4-lwWQklLwVaOT75oF4biE411nekobMjyi95sBKjoYqKYMBgsPKTwWqHwuf80fax-K6CPK-ew=w640-h637" width="640" /></a></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 5</h2>
<p>That was a disastrous turn for Red and unless the vanguard is exceedingly lucky, the unit is going to fall. The second Red Infantry should have enough elan to push the Blue Hussars back a turn or two, but then what? Until the Blue Hussars are whittled down below 10 health remaining, they will likely continue to act each turn. Although this is an experiment, I don't want it to be at the expense of the entire Westonian Southern Army. (Or do I secretly have an Eastonian bias…)</p><p>The vanguard of the Red Infantry continues to wallow in confusion and the Blue Hussars sees to their destruction. The Red Artillery moves off of the road to make way for more Red Infantry, should they be needed to carry the position the Blue Hussars are defending.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhftC3Le5FezE4LQmzeHMTc0AGbnZEGl9JDwxJ5oDaSQJOK65TrYdMVMBFswqDjMbd5J78gyDMnzn-1NmzoNHu7ZDRJXSHn8Vb3rB8FO2R5gtgLvJYjlWKP_IBlZEAoFitmKM1DadioVwlirU3MlDJOaPrR9neYbNeez7VqM58XllDS2jDxiKN1bPNjkA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1352" data-original-width="1356" height="637" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhftC3Le5FezE4LQmzeHMTc0AGbnZEGl9JDwxJ5oDaSQJOK65TrYdMVMBFswqDjMbd5J78gyDMnzn-1NmzoNHu7ZDRJXSHn8Vb3rB8FO2R5gtgLvJYjlWKP_IBlZEAoFitmKM1DadioVwlirU3MlDJOaPrR9neYbNeez7VqM58XllDS2jDxiKN1bPNjkA=w640-h637" width="640" /></a></div>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i>Solo Gamer's Notes: The Blue Hussars had a choice of either standing and firing or charging into close combat. The number of hits inflicted is the same in both instances, but close combat would have resulted in taking position C4. Had they charged, the Red Infantry in C3, which is in clear terrain and thus deployed, would have been able to fire with 1D6x½. As they stood and fired, Red Infantry must advance next turn, giving the Blue Hussars first fire.</i></p></blockquote></blockquote>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 6 and 7</h2><p>Continuing with their strategy, Red is pushing forward with the point of the bayonet. The carnage in the woods is horrendous, however, as the Blue Hussars continue to exact a toll on the confused and densely-pack Infantry.</p><p>The Red Infantry continue to roll low – not having scored a single hit on the Blue Hussars all game – but they continue to push them back, but at great cost.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi-HdpWQsWtdeI3nfJCKgdgkzw2Mij1ECSw75N1OCiPtzrX19UAjaV1vKUdSOTm2FkHJvkPzF6FLD_ux2kNXZJz44TSvGqtp4MPHLFlVvT83fV9Aja8wjw5TLTbt29UVHSIrmuBr8wMgwHFCA23hhN-kUeeuH11tSUInhI9BPU0twbEXNoW2G0W8iYTiQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1352" data-original-width="1357" height="637" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi-HdpWQsWtdeI3nfJCKgdgkzw2Mij1ECSw75N1OCiPtzrX19UAjaV1vKUdSOTm2FkHJvkPzF6FLD_ux2kNXZJz44TSvGqtp4MPHLFlVvT83fV9Aja8wjw5TLTbt29UVHSIrmuBr8wMgwHFCA23hhN-kUeeuH11tSUInhI9BPU0twbEXNoW2G0W8iYTiQ=w640-h637" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><i>Solo Gamer's Notes: At this point I need to make a decision. Do I allow the Red Infantry to push the Blue Hussars off of the board and end the game or do I allow them to stand? This was one of the 'gotchas' that came up with this rule in <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2019/12/american-war-of-independence-variant.html" target="_blank">my AWI variant of OHW</a>, which has this same 'defender retreats' mechanic. Another possibility is to extend the battlefield by creating column 7. This is one of the possibilities you can do with solo gaming, especially if you have the space. As the first two options are not especially realistic – there is no magic line in the ground that instantly stops combat or gives a unit the courage to stop retreating – so I decide to extend the battlefield, rolling for terrain. If the terrain generation is generous enough – like it was in E3, E4, and F4 – it might open up at the road allowing Red to overwhelm Blue.</i></p></blockquote><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 8</h2><p>After generating more terrain – and the results were not kind to Red – I continue with the combat.</p><p>The Red Infantry again push the Blue Hussars back, but still inflicting no hits. (How many '1's and '2's are they going to roll?) Because they hit an open area, the Red Infantry can deploy into Line, so they do not get hit with 1D6 by the Blue Hussars.</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg5gMEswtfcPDjlv9O4hPxDpFClXywzZF8EDURNo8rysfqXAUqFf-Sn81TA1XEp_5yEqMlMOS_jpV3edL0LyngMbnknHo0p9KNctXbQM6VvgmzwuJTqcO_xx-OMQoZBp_8HU7Q5S7NvN61S_9V8UaQv7B1rngGpauJHs6zmvV2lRc-m0dp4BGL0X73_LQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1363" data-original-width="1779" height="491" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg5gMEswtfcPDjlv9O4hPxDpFClXywzZF8EDURNo8rysfqXAUqFf-Sn81TA1XEp_5yEqMlMOS_jpV3edL0LyngMbnknHo0p9KNctXbQM6VvgmzwuJTqcO_xx-OMQoZBp_8HU7Q5S7NvN61S_9V8UaQv7B1rngGpauJHs6zmvV2lRc-m0dp4BGL0X73_LQ=w640-h491" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><i>Solo Gamer's Notes: At this point I feel a twinge of "Are you sure this is the right tactic for Red?" When Red deploys, the casualty rate against it goes down and the casualty rate against Blue goes up. Given that pushing Blue 'off board' does not result in a victory, only in the board being extended, pushing no longer seems like an effective tactic. So, either Red takes a stand here or … if Red can push Blue back one more square to C8, this would allow Red Infantry to move to C7 and eventually B7, while the next Red Infantry would move up to either C6 (to let Blue move back to C7 to be caught in a crossfire) or to C7 (to switch out to a fresh Red Infantry unit). I decide to keep the current 'push' tactic on a 1-2, with push to B7 on a 3-4, and stand and fight on a 5-6. Apparently the lead unit is tired of taking hits, so they want to stand and fight.</i></p></blockquote><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turns 9 Through 15</h2><p>A cheer goes up from the Red Infantry as they finally score some damage against the Blue Hussars, but it is quickly quelled as the return fire is devastating (1 hit versus 4 in return). The Red Infantry courageously continues to stand and deliver. Unfortunately, it was not enough. Red Infantry's morale collapsed and they could not longer effectively muster the courage to charge or to fire. The Blue Hussars whittled them down but failed to eliminate them when darkness feel. Both sides retreated to regroup.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjbRA6tCcVUfCPw3r7Ksr4cd1X1SyJ8FpthnICIYcT2T5VJqsMXHyhx_iVaM5Shu61faVv3wL5O5KQe0ibELAwH4ufmQq162ErqfWuSvCXI_akF3c7eQ4FRdDmOniemcUrKDV-HiPP1mXEDsk0LNB-RBTYZ9yXcB8S35Z7lX1kB9Zlx3UbwPyzNn4Z_xQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="1778" height="491" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjbRA6tCcVUfCPw3r7Ksr4cd1X1SyJ8FpthnICIYcT2T5VJqsMXHyhx_iVaM5Shu61faVv3wL5O5KQe0ibELAwH4ufmQq162ErqfWuSvCXI_akF3c7eQ4FRdDmOniemcUrKDV-HiPP1mXEDsk0LNB-RBTYZ9yXcB8S35Z7lX1kB9Zlx3UbwPyzNn4Z_xQ=w640-h491" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>Wow, was that battle different! Again, the goal of <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2022/04/first-attempt-at-map-campaign.html" target="_blank">my campaign</a> is to generate scenarios with context to the both the last and next game, create scenarios that are not plastic, even point battles, and create situations that you might not normally play with a face-to-face opponent (such as a 7 units versus 1 unit full-on ambush). So far I feel like I have succeeded, in only for blowing dust off of products that I purchased and have never used (I am looking at you <i>The Solo Wargaming Guide</i>, <i>Kings of War Battlefield Cards,</i> and <i>Warcry Battleplan Cards</i>.)</p>
<p>For those of you who are fans of OHW, I would like to hear from you about what you think of these modifications. Half casualties for Hussars (and Skirmishers) did not have a huge effect because so many attacks were close combat and 1D6-2. When they finally turned to firing, they kept rolling a '1' and then they failed activation.</p>
<p>What did have an impact were the activation rules. Once a unit gets below a certain number of hits it is doomed, save for the occasional bit of luck. The reason why this rule had such an impact though is due to the nature of the terrain and unit characteristics. If there had been room to maneuver, or the unit could have been interpenetrated, their inability to activate would have been much less of a consequence.</p><p>For those here for the solo mechanics talk, I know I have moved away from programmed A.I. type rules and towards using chance to determine a course of action amongst two or three (or more) logical choices. From a gaming viewpoint, this method is more flexible than programming, but it allows more player bias to creep in. Then again, sometimes the path that you think is the 'best' turns out not to be, or allows you to explore other concepts like an expanding tabletop. I would like to hear what you think about these concepts also.</p>Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-76903841010640456202022-05-26T22:45:00.002-07:002022-05-26T22:45:50.175-07:00The Second Battle for Firnskuppe<h1 style="text-align: left;">Introduction</h1>
<p>This is the tactical battle for my second engagement in <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2022/04/first-attempt-at-map-campaign.html" target="_blank">my solo campaign, the First Elopean War</a>. I am again using <a href="https://www.amazon.com/One-hour-Wargames-Practical-Tabletop-Battles/dp/1473822904/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">Neil Thomas' <i>One-Hour Wargames</i></a> (OHW) to fight out the tactical battles. The only difference from the normal rules in that I used a 6" square grid for regulating distance. For the campaign, I am using <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Solo-Wargaming-Guide-William-Silvester/dp/1938270134/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">The Solo Wargaming Guide</a></i> (TSWG).</p>
<p>In the first battle the Westonian Advanced Guard, consisting of a Line Infantry Regiment and a Line Cavalry Regiment, attacking the barely mustered Firnskuppe Hussars, an understrength Light Cavalry Regiment. The Eastonians were driven from the town, leaving the Westonians in possession, waiting for the main forces to arrive.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj2c7ETQfm5_cMlmoK51KFvN4Y_mbVUK6fI6VAOAmt1HbBHCiKK4mzwSCPYwoGB4qSYm-oH7D93QuNaALyWarq9mYVD7DSsYGQmiT8OtcedeWo1-D_vK9kD2xKsVpKDVu9G6RE-K-b46A7ASLwbX4atIXuW8FVJIAd_YVICfRZ-FewYiB6q2eUeFABtiw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="1320" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj2c7ETQfm5_cMlmoK51KFvN4Y_mbVUK6fI6VAOAmt1HbBHCiKK4mzwSCPYwoGB4qSYm-oH7D93QuNaALyWarq9mYVD7DSsYGQmiT8OtcedeWo1-D_vK9kD2xKsVpKDVu9G6RE-K-b46A7ASLwbX4atIXuW8FVJIAd_YVICfRZ-FewYiB6q2eUeFABtiw=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div>
<p>The second engagement sees more Eastonian forces arriving, attempting to retake the town.</p>
<h1>Pre-Battle</h1>
<p>I have decided to try another system for determining what the battle's setup, victory conditions, and "game twists"; this time Games Workshops' <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Games-Wrkshop-Age-Sigmar-Warcry/dp/1788265971/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">Warcry</a></i>. Why Warcry? It is a currently available game and thus its components are readily available. I am not suggesting you buy the rules or a boxed set, but you can buy the <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Age-Sigmar-WARCRY-BATTLEPLAN/dp/B07VBPLCGS/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">Warcry Battleplan Cards</a></i> (WBC) separately. Like the <i>Kings of War: Battlefield Cards</i>, they use cards to provide you variations in your games. The WBC contains four sets of cards: the Terrain Deck; the Deployment Deck; the Victory Deck; and the Twist Deck.</p><p>The Terrain Deck dictates the terrain that will appear on the board. As <i>Warcry</i> is a skirmish game, this terrain is not really suited for the tactical level of game we are playing. Besides, we will be reusing the terrain from the first battle as this battle is also centered around the same area.</p><p>The Deployment Deck covers the deployment diagrams that are in TSWG (see image below), but offers far more variations.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEir9AjxJmN4rNqg_YDX7LuYQQ3MnKx2aeS1gwpqTytGP5XPi0E8x5TNC4SNB_V0migdxRt4BH30bkqZ_M8k9z0YBJJMkwiKnAEBff-m3DM3M8E7DouPEVJeWo9ys1kRwA_uDumOEMNBe0YnoPwUPmFSZFhi32xhma3V1eVbYw6Nn3LLWr2HoLOPn89MTg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="4382" data-original-width="2809" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEir9AjxJmN4rNqg_YDX7LuYQQ3MnKx2aeS1gwpqTytGP5XPi0E8x5TNC4SNB_V0migdxRt4BH30bkqZ_M8k9z0YBJJMkwiKnAEBff-m3DM3M8E7DouPEVJeWo9ys1kRwA_uDumOEMNBe0YnoPwUPmFSZFhi32xhma3V1eVbYw6Nn3LLWr2HoLOPn89MTg=w257-h400" width="257" /></a></div><br />The Victory Deck will serve as a replacement for the Objectives Deck from <i>Kings of War</i>. Again, as WBC is centered around game system, there may be a bit of interpretation to make it work.<p></p><p>Finally, the Twists Deck is akin to the Conditions Deck from <i>Kings of War</i>. It is to add a twist to the battle, hopefully without too much interpretation.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Deployment</h2><p>I drew the card "Deadly Gambit" (see image below). The two sides are shown as red and blue and each force is separated into three battle groups: Hammer, Dagger, and Shield. Each battle group must contain at least one unit (if possible) and no more than one-half of the units. The Shield group must contain at least one-third of the units, rounded up.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjwkPLUjsI8WbUdAqfsZ6roTctH2tBwFkrbz7KFHJbvrgsoEQH1vcsdTrK-gI8EvQK8DioT_TewIlkzsIfDGGs4esL0RGaJbbCDabx7Gci-muhexk2A0ex-r6lZygMMM7G92IBmYxu55fMI8SuoHuxtm02kXWmZcx7MFHbbLBMZ3BAxPLd-LSUCoYuQfA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="745" data-original-width="1025" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjwkPLUjsI8WbUdAqfsZ6roTctH2tBwFkrbz7KFHJbvrgsoEQH1vcsdTrK-gI8EvQK8DioT_TewIlkzsIfDGGs4esL0RGaJbbCDabx7Gci-muhexk2A0ex-r6lZygMMM7G92IBmYxu55fMI8SuoHuxtm02kXWmZcx7MFHbbLBMZ3BAxPLd-LSUCoYuQfA" width="320" /></a></div><br />This is a complicated deployment as red force has their Dagger battle group in the SW corner, but the remaining groups are coming on from the N and the NE. The blue force has their Dagger battle group in the NE corner, and the remaining groups coming on from the S and SW. So the Dagger forces are positioned near where the enemy will come on (hence a deadly gambit).<p></p><p>Given the locations of the forces on this card and their locations on the map I can envision the Westonian infantry patrolling close around the town of Firnskuppe, thus it makes sense that the are red Dagger. Because the red Shield must contain at least one-third of the forces (in this case, one unit), the cavalry is red Shield. It appears they were patrolling the woods outside of Firnskuppe and are coming back due to the town coming under attack.</p><p>The Eastonian forces are approaching Firnskuppe from the East and South. It makes sense (to me) that the light infantry from the East are in the blue Dagger group. They are skirmishers and they appear to have infiltrated onto the board before the alarm was raised. The light cavalry from the East have swung around the town and are attacking from the SW (Shield group). Finally, the light infantry from the South are entering as the blue Hammer group.</p><p>Note the markers <b>RND2</b> on the card. This indicates that these forces will come on at the beginning of Round 2.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Victory Conditions</h2><p>As always, the primary objective of each side is the destruction of the enemy forces, but as I indicated last time, I wanted to determine a 'victor' for the purposes of determining which side would have a higher casualty rate. (The loser would have that higher rate.)</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiG5DGcKheeXwJ9ZuDFDh2QdiEpYsGt2ia61_Q_DCHjOGQM3bif1vPLN_ZP9z9TlgYz_Uak_Qz16KBbuURYBHyNbegmilPwDLelbMXYZaXbHHmuBbUx0ACwUEe9n_wtu1FPZWG-Mda8tDg6p-KOcEzHKtCSqUmDoPcYPf6CYuMaP5CBPl-_GStCBSpa0Q" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="741" data-original-width="1001" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiG5DGcKheeXwJ9ZuDFDh2QdiEpYsGt2ia61_Q_DCHjOGQM3bif1vPLN_ZP9z9TlgYz_Uak_Qz16KBbuURYBHyNbegmilPwDLelbMXYZaXbHHmuBbUx0ACwUEe9n_wtu1FPZWG-Mda8tDg6p-KOcEzHKtCSqUmDoPcYPf6CYuMaP5CBPl-_GStCBSpa0Q" width="320" /></a></div><br />As shown in the image above, the victory conditions indicate that the map is to be divided into quarters. Each quarter generates a victory point at the end of each round. The battle ends after three rounds.<p></p><p>The first interpretation is 'what is a round'? <i>Warcry</i> generally lasts four rounds, so this indicates it is a shorter game. OHW typically lasts 15 games turns, so it looks like a round is roughly equivalent to four OHW turns. So this battle will last no more than 12 turns.</p><p>Further, the Hammer and Shield groups are to enter on round 2, so they will come on at the start of turn 5.</p><p>Finally, because the Eastonian force coming from the South (blue Hammer group) marches two hexes to get to the battle (the East force only marches one hex), I am imposing an additional delay. Blue Hammer will enter on round 3, or the start of turn 9.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Twist</h2><p>As shown in the image below, I drew "Sinister Bargain". This needs a <b>lot</b> of interpretation, given that it talks about chaos and a beast.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhBMg5i2yMYc0lY8_K61gEdd4dpJ-GMe4vTtqQp5Ol0XAxtAZog058NgmjXZ2JJGrB7pIB9CBmIifxHcneooYLxuDJDkR1ffWiR1DgkWnSVUwuOIh4pmLosyfR8Amaz_mcRH1ApP3QuXBjTbjy4AkCi9YJFiaMfo6kavcyilw51RMGDlmkNTN35824S_g" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="239" data-original-width="331" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhBMg5i2yMYc0lY8_K61gEdd4dpJ-GMe4vTtqQp5Ol0XAxtAZog058NgmjXZ2JJGrB7pIB9CBmIifxHcneooYLxuDJDkR1ffWiR1DgkWnSVUwuOIh4pmLosyfR8Amaz_mcRH1ApP3QuXBjTbjy4AkCi9YJFiaMfo6kavcyilw51RMGDlmkNTN35824S_g" width="320" /></a></div><br />It is relatively simple though. The town of Firnskuppe is being fought over. Although it is a very small town (class E) with no inherent militia, I am going to treat this as a band of armed citizenry. If the Eastonians win the roll-off, they are patriots; it the Westonians win, they are collaborators who have been waiting to switch sides. The band will count as an understrength (one company) Skirmisher unit.<p></p><p>Rather than using a simple roll-off, I will use each side's Commander Competency Rating (CCR), which happens to be a '3' for both sides. Westonia rolls a '4'; Eastonia rolls a '3'. The Skirmisher unit goes to the Westonians.</p><h1 style="text-align: left;">Deployment</h1><p>As a reminder, here are the effects of the terrain found on this board.</p><p><b>Road</b> - (light yellow-brown line) Units moving by road increase their movement distance by 3" if their entire move is spent on the road. This bonus may not be received if charging.</p><p><b>Lt Woods</b> - (light green oval) Only Skirmishers may enter. Units receive ½ casualties from firing.</p><p><b>Hvy Woods</b> - (dark green oval) Only infantry Skirmishers may enter. Units receive ½ casualties from firing.</p><p><b>Lake</b> - (blue-gray oval) Impassable to all units.</p><p><b>Firnskuppe</b> - (four gray rectangles) As this is a Village (class E) and not a Town (class D or better), movement is not affected for any unit. Units receive ½ casualties from firing.</p><p><b>Farm</b> - (two dark red rectangles) Skirmishers receive ½ casualties from firing.</p><p><b>Fields</b> - (large brown square) Cavalry movement is halved. (In terms of a square grid that means Cavalry may enter the Fields on its second square of movement, but only receives one square of movement when exiting the Fields square.)</p><p><b>Hill</b> - (light brown rounded rectangle) Units in close combat defending a hill from an attacker not on a hill receives ½ casualties.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhH9WrsQt_Y6NuyXkpIbnA95vSQ61X2Z3KPprB1s_b91zGXJxEP003NeieOTvTa9kQ87V64FYiBaBcAEd7uE8KuhjS1E_CHkN5ky66UEJVHT96QJiDl7ZluGgCsQRC7JrOiilGjb-d3P_dSDtcyzeIrphnFTCaTCmIN7sp8yupxCVLfddSxTMQ8kjqFAw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhH9WrsQt_Y6NuyXkpIbnA95vSQ61X2Z3KPprB1s_b91zGXJxEP003NeieOTvTa9kQ87V64FYiBaBcAEd7uE8KuhjS1E_CHkN5ky66UEJVHT96QJiDl7ZluGgCsQRC7JrOiilGjb-d3P_dSDtcyzeIrphnFTCaTCmIN7sp8yupxCVLfddSxTMQ8kjqFAw=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div>
<p>As you can see in the map above, B5 contains the Blue Dagger and D3 contains the Red Dagger. (Normally, Red Dagger would be at E2, but as that is a lake square, and thus impassable, I decided to roll a D10 for the location of the unit. 1, 2, and 3 would be D1, D2, and D3. 4 and 5 would be E1 while 6 and 7 would be E3. 8, 9, and 0 would be F1, F2, and F3. With the roll of a '3', the unit ended up in the village.)</p>
<p>Units with green backgrounds are Skirmisher units, while those with black backgrounds are either Infantry or Cavalry. The numbers in the center represent the number of remaining hits.</p>
<h1 style="text-align: left;">Battle Plan</h1>
<p>One of the things ideas in TSWG is to make three battle plans and to simply roll a D6 to determine which one to run.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Blue</h2>
<p>The first battle plan (roll of 1-2) is for the Blue Dagger to get to cover in the NW corner to take that objective, then hold off the enemy for as long as possible. Hammer and Shield will both enter the SW quadrant to contest that quarter.</p><p>Battle plan 2 (roll of 3-4) is for the Blue Dagger to get cover in the SE corner to take that objective, while staying out of line of sight. When Shield enters the board (on turn 5), both will simultaneously attack Firnskuppe.</p>
<p>The final battle plan (roll of 5-6) is for Blue Dagger to immediately attack Firnskuppe in order to whittle it down so Blue Shield can take it as soon as possible.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Red</h2>
<p>Battle plan 1 is to defend Firnskuppe with all units, as they arrive.</p>
<p>Battle plan 2 is to defend Firnskuppe with the Red Infantry, attack with the Red Cavalry (the closest unit), and hold the NW corner with the Red Skirmisher.</p>
<p>Battle plan 3 is to defend Firnskuppe with the Red Infantry, hold the NE corner with the Red Cavalry, and hold the NW corner with the Red Skirmisher.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Result</h2>
<p>Blue will use battle plan 3 while red uses battle plan 2.</p>
<h1 style="text-align: left;">The Battle</h1>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 1</h2>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Blue</h3>
<p>Blue Skirmishers move from B5 to C5. Although the unit could have moved into range and line of sight by moving to C4, this would have put the Skirmisher at a severe disadvantage (it takes full damage, while the attacker takes ½ damage).</p>
<p>Let's stop for a second and go over which square the unit should move to. First, you need to understand my concept of <i>Average Turns to Eliminate</i> (ATE). If you look at the possible number of hits a unit can inflict, the number of hits remaining in the unit being fired upon, you get the average number of turns to eliminate that unit. Quickly calculating this value can help you determine which target you should attack (your ATE against the enemy unit) and where you should move (the enemy's ATE against your unit).</p>
<p>The average hits by Skirmishers and Infantry are:</p>
<table border="1">
<thead>
<tr><td><b>Die Roll</b></td><td><b>Skirmisher</b></td><td><b>Infantry</b></td></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td><b>1</b></td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>2</b></td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>3</b></td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>4</b></td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>5</b></td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>6</b></td><td>4</td><td>6</td></tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
<tr><td><b>Average</b></td><td>1.67</td><td>3.5</td></tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p>So the ATE of Infantry being shot by the Skirmisher is 15 hits / 1.67 or 9 turns (rounded up). The ATE of Skirmishers being shot by Infantry is 12 hits / 3.5 or 4 turns. Note that shooting at units in cover changes the ATE.</p>
<table border="1">
<thead>
<tr><td><b>Die Roll</b></td><td><b>Skirmisher vs Cover</b></td><td><b>Infantry vs Cover</b></td></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td><b>1</b></td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>2</b></td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>3</b></td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>4</b></td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>5</b></td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>6</b></td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
<tr><td><b>Average</b></td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p>The ATE of Infantry in cover being shot by the Skirmisher is 15 hits / 1 or 15 turns, while the ATE of Skirmishers in cover being shot by Infantry is 12 hits / 2 or 6 turns. Because the Infantry will (likely) remain in Firnskuppe it will always be in cover, so it will have an ATE of 15. If the Skirmishers fight it out of cover its ATE will be 4, but will jump to 6 if it moves to cover first.</p><p>With the target in D3 you have to be in the following squares to be in cover while also being in line of sight of Firnskuppe: B3, D1, D4, and F2.</p><p>Now let's think about the Red Cavalry that will enter on turn 5. With close combat you can also calculate ATE.</p>
<table border="1">
<thead>
<tr><td><b>Die Roll</b></td><td><b>Cavalry x ½</b></td><td><b>Cavalry</b></td><td><b>Cavalry x 2</b></td></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td><b>1</b></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>2</b></td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>3</b></td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>10</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>4</b></td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>12</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>5</b></td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>14</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>6</b></td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>15</td></tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
<tr><td><b>Average</b></td><td>3.5</td><td>5.5</td><td>10.83</td></tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p>Given these stats, the Skirmisher simply cannot afford to get caught out by the Cavalry. Thus the only safe squares for the Skirmishers are: D1, D4, and F2. This is why the Blue Skirmisher moved from B5 to C5. It is heading for the heavy woods in D4. Had it moved to C4 the Red Infantry would shoot it in the open, inflicting 3.5 hits. By moving to C5 it can still reach D4 next turn, but without being shot upon in the open.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Red</h3>
<p>With the Blue Skirmisher hiding and the Red Infantry with orders to hold Firnskuppe, it has no action this turn other than to face towards the East.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhrz0DDYRaGh9TA6E_cJTc22BnOIa0xQmxkrXXJbsn7m6y2dlqLbQk8knJ0A9bRfl5LwhGj1xaldH5vjqjNZ6KMbNrM8auzomJuajhW9fD-NkudSJGHrqFbm_QClCXhxTYNLayfKIXpACVXJEEswMLitYk-LrTvtnZnfjfyufqbyyxgBZuWZX6aZoynsQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhrz0DDYRaGh9TA6E_cJTc22BnOIa0xQmxkrXXJbsn7m6y2dlqLbQk8knJ0A9bRfl5LwhGj1xaldH5vjqjNZ6KMbNrM8auzomJuajhW9fD-NkudSJGHrqFbm_QClCXhxTYNLayfKIXpACVXJEEswMLitYk-LrTvtnZnfjfyufqbyyxgBZuWZX6aZoynsQ=w400-h400" width="400" />
</a>
</div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 2</h2>
<p>The Blue Skirmisher moves from C5 to D4. Now it is safe from the Red Cavalry that will come on and has cover against the Red Infantry. It will still be outshot by the enemy, but its mission is to wear down the enemy for other units to take out. Meanwhile the Red Infantry fires, scoring a measly one hit.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhqpVoPL01uU6dA60fEb9wHUE9Y0jks1ELFYLHuqhiAgfgtJtphL9ryte4oz5L1Sm4ZyViJuaJgovz2PPdk_OZ4j4OEr3H_BK8lGbaXzuG7xgCeXWiXCgU36UT5H3rG8kdSRPkXcAXcnJPYhbWqEN8apsj_dw94X-MSp_rjpVOayG-hOsRQfCNMfkTaDA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhqpVoPL01uU6dA60fEb9wHUE9Y0jks1ELFYLHuqhiAgfgtJtphL9ryte4oz5L1Sm4ZyViJuaJgovz2PPdk_OZ4j4OEr3H_BK8lGbaXzuG7xgCeXWiXCgU36UT5H3rG8kdSRPkXcAXcnJPYhbWqEN8apsj_dw94X-MSp_rjpVOayG-hOsRQfCNMfkTaDA=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 3 and 4</h2>
<p>At this point neither unit is moving and both are firing, so I will play out two turns. After that reinforcements will come on for both sides.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhGcl88l4CowyxTG_KZym34_NY_1qLSVwqosbsmoQg_qLm7z_wE7cg5LYLu2pwSc4cHt8T6ix6mBpi3mwmTIm3RVZ2Iflhp2Wyg8ZQ6-6z7QIv3vb8lOslNZd6_G_njiqKXuRH-vJZxgcO8VeFeVVagq5dyHj8iOLDly8hXFrP4W0cb1B8TIEppwdpstg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhGcl88l4CowyxTG_KZym34_NY_1qLSVwqosbsmoQg_qLm7z_wE7cg5LYLu2pwSc4cHt8T6ix6mBpi3mwmTIm3RVZ2Iflhp2Wyg8ZQ6-6z7QIv3vb8lOslNZd6_G_njiqKXuRH-vJZxgcO8VeFeVVagq5dyHj8iOLDly8hXFrP4W0cb1B8TIEppwdpstg=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div>
<p>With the end of the 'round', Red scores 1 VP for holding the SW quadrant while Blue scores 1 VP for holding the SE quadrant.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 5</h2><p>Time to bring on the reinforcements! Remember that the Blue Hammer (Skirmisher) does not come on until turn 9, as it has farther to march to get to the battle. But the Blue Shield (mounted Skirmisher) can come on, as can both the Red Hammer and Red Shield.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhh-p4iZLAWZjZG7IBqNOEL7dEEQKJdVBt3J4KCNf1xf_PbkSFwwmJrJaWraME9GHX3_wmWER-6eKGRPZ2wSmFcxSg83kUKBUMv1SLsQ3o0fA4yWcxPPnUpIwFY8RwEIOR4RLxMOfBRmlY1LNmZX8UWsXYITpP0bj04Pc0yDfp3MmhxfOEdcpKDIwYZHw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhh-p4iZLAWZjZG7IBqNOEL7dEEQKJdVBt3J4KCNf1xf_PbkSFwwmJrJaWraME9GHX3_wmWER-6eKGRPZ2wSmFcxSg83kUKBUMv1SLsQ3o0fA4yWcxPPnUpIwFY8RwEIOR4RLxMOfBRmlY1LNmZX8UWsXYITpP0bj04Pc0yDfp3MmhxfOEdcpKDIwYZHw=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div>
<p>So, let me explain the logic behind the moves. Blue Mounted Skirmisher is not Cavalry, so it cannot charge. It is essentially a fast moving Skirmisher unit that cannot enter heavy woods. So, like the Blue Skirmisher it needs to attack by firing and it wants to stay in cover. It has two basic missions: eliminate the Red Infantry in Firnskuppe and contest the SW quadrant. It can do this from either D1 or F2. Although the Red Cavalry cannot attack it in either square (Cavalry cannot enter light or heavy woods), the Red Skirmisher coming on can. So by choosing to move to F2, Blue can continue to attack Firnskuppe, but it makes it much harder for Red to disrupt that attack.</p><p>The Red Skirmisher is heading for the farm (B3) as it is cover and it allows it to control the NW quadrant, but it wants to ensure it gets there safely. Although no one is likely to attack it, moving behind the hill in B4 ensures that.</p><p>Red Cavalry is to attack any Blue unit brave enough to come out in the open, or to move into Firnskuppe if it becomes undefended. It cannot attack either Skirmisher unit as it cannot enter the woods squares, so it really has no target. At this point you have to ask yourself whether you feel it is legitimate to change plans or not, i.e. switch to contesting either the SE quadrant or holding the NE quadrant, rather than hunting for units to charge.</p><p>You might think it is rather disadvantageous for Red with all this woods, but remember that Firnskuppe is actually in a woods terrain hex on the main map. So if anything, this table is rather clear considering its surroundings.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 6</h2><p>The Blue forces continue to pound the Red Infantry in Firnskuppe, who in turn continues firing at the Blue Skirmishers in the heavy woods.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhBh3S4msMbwKNKx48zU-aCrkGAhxQoH4WE0eePsamRmhOOipS7rb8KW5Db3BwwawDV-w-5kLS3blBjE4vMVnv6KPfub5Eb0HRIQBPk6d1bXZoX_VI9Nw4u5_WjSVaQ2g7yyKLXk9vTKIsSNTSmVftK0uYN9qYySeIk40XYUbyjcBuVV4qspf_Rlww2Lg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhBh3S4msMbwKNKx48zU-aCrkGAhxQoH4WE0eePsamRmhOOipS7rb8KW5Db3BwwawDV-w-5kLS3blBjE4vMVnv6KPfub5Eb0HRIQBPk6d1bXZoX_VI9Nw4u5_WjSVaQ2g7yyKLXk9vTKIsSNTSmVftK0uYN9qYySeIk40XYUbyjcBuVV4qspf_Rlww2Lg=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div>
<p>The Red Cavalry moves to the hill in order to secure the NE quadrant while the Red Skirmishers occupy the cover of the farm to secure the NW quadrant.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 7</h2>
<p>This turn was a bit of jockeying about for Red. As the Red Skirmishers are a temporary force (they will go away after this battle), losing them is not a great loss. They move from the farm to the open ground in C3. Next turn they will be able to fire upon the Blue Skirmishers in the woods, hoping to support Firnskuppe. Because they now occupy the NE quadrant the Red Cavalry move from the hill to A3, occupying the NW quadrant. Blue forces continue to blaze away at Firnskuppe.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhsRe-9FwvHfhq6Wg2xb6FL70A8RKoafjjT80PC21rbyUEtKwPU93C75Wrpmql7N0Id8nTJBV7lli5cHbE4DIbghigvlLDux0I3MOmWVlCk3q-ZTDccEvbZpMGf47T1EBJdUtoF9KXDpOLNic2Op2rVcAweE3vF2HX4b1EqEflgG0R7HJD8S2K116hnLQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhsRe-9FwvHfhq6Wg2xb6FL70A8RKoafjjT80PC21rbyUEtKwPU93C75Wrpmql7N0Id8nTJBV7lli5cHbE4DIbghigvlLDux0I3MOmWVlCk3q-ZTDccEvbZpMGf47T1EBJdUtoF9KXDpOLNic2Op2rVcAweE3vF2HX4b1EqEflgG0R7HJD8S2K116hnLQ=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 8</h2>
<p>This turn was significant in that it saw the destruction of the Blue Skirmishers (to musket fire) and the Red Infantry barely holding on. Meanwhile the Red Cavalry slipped to the West, ready to enter Firnskuppe should the Red Infantry fall.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgQbrwRJBylXtXRqMIA7_k27-DJh8irdrM8cGp7tyGTteZG2_DwJ8y9gdxUdRe4AWJnXFh0MIRWGhnSODiwRozjPG8Hascr2YlJSg1zEgMPKLZGCFnWO03JqZcyGyTmtqNHapa1-n4t0f8m-00Mle_W3SR_NqLP2nlQVPsGqxzIwq_CHEow7ISDKoLNZw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgQbrwRJBylXtXRqMIA7_k27-DJh8irdrM8cGp7tyGTteZG2_DwJ8y9gdxUdRe4AWJnXFh0MIRWGhnSODiwRozjPG8Hascr2YlJSg1zEgMPKLZGCFnWO03JqZcyGyTmtqNHapa1-n4t0f8m-00Mle_W3SR_NqLP2nlQVPsGqxzIwq_CHEow7ISDKoLNZw=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div><br />With the end of round 2 the score stands at 3 VP for Red and only 1 VP for Blue.<p></p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 9</h2><p>If you read my <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2022/05/map-campaign-part-3.html" target="_blank">discussion on casualty recovery</a> you will remember that there is a significant difference between a unit alive at the end of the battle and one that was eliminated. Infantry with 1-5 hits remaining loses 5 hits permanently on a '1' or '2' (on a D6), yet if it is eliminated by musketry it loses 10 hits on a '1' and 5 hits on a '2' or '3'. Because of this the Red Infantry cannot afford to take the risk of two more turns of fire, especially with another Blue Skirmisher unit coming on this turn. For that reason I decide to retreat out of Firnskuppe with the Red Infantry, replacing it with the Red Skirmishers. (Skirmishers can move through Infantry and vice versa.) But not before one more shot from the Blue Mounted Skirmishers…</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjm6ePBkNeR2MoebauhY15x3MK2aqyolzdDh-phoYggzSAtc5praojE0LiIoD2AB9XKdKTicZvymEN3pAvtCredEitthh9HLHkQGkocWpvlH7KfGlruiOiaAGMCLqZNpznr4MtrpBmzMrxJHNLJz_uGx1n5LMDmq0e8L0Af71V6n6C5fd_hEY9o2gf3Jw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjm6ePBkNeR2MoebauhY15x3MK2aqyolzdDh-phoYggzSAtc5praojE0LiIoD2AB9XKdKTicZvymEN3pAvtCredEitthh9HLHkQGkocWpvlH7KfGlruiOiaAGMCLqZNpznr4MtrpBmzMrxJHNLJz_uGx1n5LMDmq0e8L0Af71V6n6C5fd_hEY9o2gf3Jw=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div><br /><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 10</h2><p></p><p>The Blue force can clearly see that the Red Infantry have escaped their destruction, and really have no way of capturing Firnskuppe, so they decide to cut their losses and retreat South. The Second Battle of Firnskuppe is over with yet another Eastonian loss.</p><h1 style="text-align: left;">Aftermath</h1><p>The Eastonians have lost one Skirmish unit to musketry, so they lose 10 hits on a '1' (or less) and 5 hits on a '2' (out of the unit's 12 hits). Because they were on the losing side they subtract 1 from their die roll. They rolled a '4', so they will all return to battle once they have regrouped.</p><p>The Westonian Infantry lost 14 hits so with 1-5 hits remaining, they lose 5 hit on a '1' or '2'. They roll a '3' so they too have no permanent losses after regrouping.</p><h1 style="text-align: left;">Summary</h1><p>I always think that, because Skirmishers are so weak in OHW, these battles where one side is all Skirmishers, it is going to be a drag. This time was closer than the last.</p><p>In the first battle, the Eastonians had the village as defense and fog to ensure that the attacking Westonians had no cover to use. In this battle, had the local rabble not sided with the Westonians, I think they might well have lost their Infantry and lost the battle on victory points.</p><p>I have long groused about using event charts and random tables in solo games. I still contend that using those elements to affect the core game mechanics is not a good idea, but I am liking it for modifying the scenario and battle <i>environment</i>.</p><p>Using the <i>Warcry Battleplan Cards</i> was also very easy to interpret to the Horse and Musket period. Sometimes it takes a bit of narrative to figure out how the units end up split to match the deployment card, but it is nothing significantly difficult.</p><p>I still have to question the casualty recovery. I am going to stick with the current recovery process just to see how it continues to play out. I don't want the forces to deplete too quickly, but there needs to be some consequence to battles, won or lost, doesn't there? As it stands, the original goal of the campaign was to provide interesting, linked battles and this has definitely filled the bill so far.</p><p>What do you think? Is this sort of battle report useful (for your own ideas on solo gaming)? Is it interesting? Do diagrams showing movement and firing convey more data than pictures of a game with miniatures? Do you look for battle reports with miniatures or do you view it as "eye candy"? My goal is to make posts that are both informative – in terms of how to game solo – as well as entertaining.</p>Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-35824066998751692052022-04-10T12:25:00.003-07:002022-04-10T12:25:53.687-07:00The Battle of Firnskuppe<p> This is the tactical battle for my first engagement in <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2022/04/first-attempt-at-map-campaign.html" target="_blank">my solo campaign, The First Elopean War</a>. I have decided to use the rules <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/One-hour-Wargames-Practical-Tabletop-Battles/dp/1473822904/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">One-Hour Wargames</a></i> (OHW) by Neil Thomas to fight out the tactical battles. The only difference from the normal rules in that I used a 6" square grid for regulating distance. For the campaign, I am using <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Solo-Wargaming-Guide-William-Silvester/dp/1938270134/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">The Solo Wargaming Guide</a></i> (TSWG).</p><p>In <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2022/04/campaign-to-battlefield-and-back-again.html" target="_blank">a recent blog post</a> (on my other blog) I went over the process that I am using to convert campaign units to OHW units and back again. Let's talk about the complete process for taking a contact on the map from the campaign to a battle on the tabletop.</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Define the forces that will be engaged.</li><li>Define the terrain on the tabletop.</li><li>Determine which side has the tactical advantage.</li><li>Determine each force's baseline.</li><li>Determine each force's objectives.</li><li>Determine battlefield conditions.</li><li>Determine each force's available stratagems.</li><li>Deploy each side's forces.</li><li>Start the battle.</li></ol>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Pre-Battle Sequence</h2>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Determine the Engaged Forces</h3>
<p>Although this might be a relatively straightforward step, as indicated in the blog post above, there are some options and a little bit of bookkeeping. Because OHW normally has 15 hits per unit, any understrength units need to be indicated. Further Light Infantry companies and Light Cavalry squadrons can be deployed as either Infantry and Cavalry units, respectively, or as Skirmisher units. How these troops are deployed would be determined at this step.</p><p>The Westonians have five Light Infantry companies and five Light Cavalry squadrons at their disposal while the Eastonians have two Light Cavalry squadrons to call upon. As the Westonians are at the strategic command of my gaming buddy Justo, and he consolidated all of his companies into Regiments, I will treat all of his Light Infantry as Infantry units and his Light Cavalry as Cavalry units. I guess that is just their culture.</p>
<p>As the Eastonian commander I have a choice of making a very weak (6 hits) Cavalry unit with my two Light Cavalry squadrons, or making a weakened (12 hits) Skirmisher unit. As I did not define a 'tradition' for consolidating companies, as Justo did, I will allow the local commander to randomly determine it. Because I think the Skirmisher unit is more survivable, I will use the following table to make the decision, rolling enough D6 until all the companies and squadrons are accounted for.</p>
<table border="1">
<thead><tr><td><b>Die Roll</b></td><td><b>Result</b></td></tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>1-4</td><td>Use 2 ½ companies/squadrons to form a Skirmisher unit</td></tr>
<tr><td>5-6</td><td>Use 5 companies/squadrons to form a Infantry/Cavalry unit</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Using that table I roll a 4, meaning the two squadrons will form a Skirmisher unit. As it is only a partial unit (2 instead of 2 ½ squadrons), the unit has 12 hits.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Determine the Tabletop Terrain</h3>
<p>The method used in TSWG is to use playing cards to randomly determine the terrain. (Because part of this campaign is to convince myself that using lots of random elements for solo gaming – which both TSWG and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Donald-Featherstones-Solo-Wargaming-Featherstone-ebook/dp/B00GHPTQCU/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">Featherstone's solo gaming books</a> use – is not so bad, I felt I needed to use as much of it as possible.) Because OHW on a grid has a board that is 6 squares wide by 6 squares deep, I decided to use one playing card for each square, largely because the campaign hex being fought in is a wooded village. If it had been a clear hex I would have drawn 3 cards wide by 3 cards deep, randomly rolling which of the four squares got the terrain indicated.</p><p>In the TSWG system only black cards produce terrain, here is what I drew.</p>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr><td>Black King</td><td>Red Queen</td><td>Red 6</td><td>Red 8</td><td>Black 7</td><td>Red Ace</td></tr>
<tr><td>Red King</td><td>Red 8</td><td>Black Jack</td><td>Black Ace</td><td>Red 5</td><td>Red Jack</td></tr>
<tr><td>Red 4</td><td>Red King</td><td>Black Queen</td><td>Red 2</td><td>Red Jack</td><td>Red 2</td></tr>
<tr><td>Black Queen</td><td>Black 8</td><td>Red Joker</td><td>Black 5</td><td>Black 6</td><td>Black Ace</td></tr>
<tr><td>Red 3</td><td>Black 10</td><td>Black 8</td><td>Red 10</td><td>Black 9</td><td>Black Joker</td></tr>
<tr><td>Black 3</td><td>Black King</td><td>Black 2</td><td>Black 2</td><td>Black 7</td><td>Red Queen</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>This translates to the following terrain.</p>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr><td>Fields</td><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td>Lt Woods</td><td><br /></td></tr>
<tr><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td>Farm</td><td>Hill</td><td><br /></td><td><br /></td></tr>
<tr><td>Road</td><td>Road</td><td>Fields</td><td>Road</td><td>Road</td><td>Road</td></tr>
<tr><td>Fields</td><td>Lt Woods</td><td><b>Firnskuppe</b></td><td>Hvy Woods</td><td>Hvy Woods</td><td>Hill</td></tr>
<tr><td><br /></td><td>Lake</td><td>Lt Woods</td><td>Road</td><td>Lt Woods</td><td>Hill w Lt Woods</td></tr>
<tr><td>Hill</td><td>Fields</td><td>Hill</td><td>Hill/Road</td><td>Lt Woods</td><td><br /></td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>By the way, this engagement was taking place on the map at the town of Firnskuppe, so the Red Joker was replaced by the town.</p>
<p>Because TSWG tells you to not slavishly follow the cards, I made a few adjustments to the terrain.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGcvIgZ1bdvWsRq6ZrhCdcgIIfvigszyVr5KvWjsXwpwzPNzwOJ9bgh5_IkGSMkkcwlLsXERJiSbYXQDPdS0vYVD3OFuMAa4b0EokNewOij5hFguOSWXjTMyUrx_f6XYLnGVdmC_UvjXYmIBsDjFH0q2DOzLgR0lzdP9q_CTQh-L3z4uAi2xQWvN7b1A" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="1320" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGcvIgZ1bdvWsRq6ZrhCdcgIIfvigszyVr5KvWjsXwpwzPNzwOJ9bgh5_IkGSMkkcwlLsXERJiSbYXQDPdS0vYVD3OFuMAa4b0EokNewOij5hFguOSWXjTMyUrx_f6XYLnGVdmC_UvjXYmIBsDjFH0q2DOzLgR0lzdP9q_CTQh-L3z4uAi2xQWvN7b1A=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>As I am using the Horse & Musket period of OHW rules, here are the effects of the terrain.</p>
<p><b>Road</b> - Units moving by road increase their movement distance by 3" if their entire move is spent on the road. This bonus may not be received if charging.</p>
<p><b>Lt Woods</b> - Only Skirmishers may enter. Units receive ½ casualties from firing.</p><p><b>Hvy Woods</b> - Only infantry Skirmishers may enter. Units receive ½ casualties from firing.</p><p><b>Lake</b> - Impassable to all units.</p><p><b>Firnskuppe</b> - As this is a Village (class E) and not a Town (class D or better), movement is not affected for any unit. Units receive ½ casualties from firing.</p><p><b>Farm</b> - Skirmishers receive ½ casualties from firing.</p><p><b>Fields</b> - Cavalry movement is halved. (In terms of a square grid that means Cavalry may enter the Fields on its second square of movement, but only receives one square of movement when exiting the Fields square.)</p><p><b>Hill </b>- Units in close combat defending a hill from an attacker not on a hill receives ½ casualties.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Determine Tactical Advantage</h3><p>According to TSWG, each force's commander has a Commander's Competency Rating (CCR). The named commanders (Brigadier Generals) had their values rolled at the start of the campaign, with potential values from 1 through 6. All non-named commanders automatically have a CCR of '3'. As both sides are using non-named commanders, they both have a CCR of '3'.</p><p>Tactical Advantage is determined by having each side roll a D6 and adding their CCR. The higher value wins.</p><p><i>Westonia rolls a '3', adding 3, for a total of 6. Eastonia rolls a '6', adding 3, for a total of 9. Eastonia has the Tactical Advantage.</i></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Determine Baselines</h3><p>TSWG gives several options for baseline configurations, as shown in the image below.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiohE4b-Fq20paxLj_3R8b73GVgH8CnFUn34Cq8BMwEEOts0rhgtEFpCGPoGrMlkw0JYXvK6UEe4Bam7x2RecuwFB6lkqj7JsO8DRVghS7Ky4GrjlQr9s-d3js-90abhV5Cr4GHlJejWPAQaV8a6zzl9mNgxd-ndsyY2nB4pXLDW0tNdiNIKrtjloTFvg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="4382" data-original-width="2809" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiohE4b-Fq20paxLj_3R8b73GVgH8CnFUn34Cq8BMwEEOts0rhgtEFpCGPoGrMlkw0JYXvK6UEe4Bam7x2RecuwFB6lkqj7JsO8DRVghS7Ky4GrjlQr9s-d3js-90abhV5Cr4GHlJejWPAQaV8a6zzl9mNgxd-ndsyY2nB4pXLDW0tNdiNIKrtjloTFvg=w257-h400" width="257" /></a></div>
<p>I allow the side with the tactical advantage to choose the configuration. If there was a tie, there would be a die roll.</p><p><i>Counting the top of the map as North, the Eastonians occupy rows 4 through 6 while the Westonians must enter the board anywhere on row 1. Westonians can choose to send a flanking force, but must 'secretly' declare whether it will be their left flank (east of the town) or right (west of the town).</i></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Determine Condition, Objectives, and Stratagems</h3><p>A while ago I purchased a product called <i>Kings of War: Battlefield Cards</i>. Unfortunately, Mantics Games no longer sells them, but you can often find them on eBay or dusty gaming store shelves. These are very similar to the <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Age-Sigmar-WARCRY-BATTLEPLAN/dp/B07VBPLCGS/?tag=daleswargames-20" target="_blank">Warcry Battleplan Cards</a></i> in that you get Objective, Conditions, and Strategy cards, allowing you to modify game scenario easily.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi77DD_uSM2CdSVH82ueSOepYDG_OpYxagGFlvYG1SqsV-QBSypLJJs-7KITRBB3T5M9TkO34mtj5bGsh5RlQSInrx1f1ob39SSJW2YJo5xX9h0ZnCLozKT3tWfRLHCT-95GY9Iv1fjLjSjbSGC_-vSZredxJywXoLrUtQT8YTuPtDcv042GVsQH51R8Q" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="449" data-original-width="863" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi77DD_uSM2CdSVH82ueSOepYDG_OpYxagGFlvYG1SqsV-QBSypLJJs-7KITRBB3T5M9TkO34mtj5bGsh5RlQSInrx1f1ob39SSJW2YJo5xX9h0ZnCLozKT3tWfRLHCT-95GY9Iv1fjLjSjbSGC_-vSZredxJywXoLrUtQT8YTuPtDcv042GVsQH51R8Q=w400-h208" width="400" /></a></div><br />The idea is that you draw a Condition card to potentially modify the conditions on the battlefield (most of the cards say the conditions are normal, however), set your primary and secondary objectives (beyond the normal objectives of defeating your opponent's forces and being the last to occupy the battlefield), and potentially use stratagems during the game.<p></p><p>The strategy cards a little boosts that can be played during the battle. As they are specific to <i>Kings of War</i>, they may take a little interpretation to make them useful for OHW.</p><p>Each side will be allowed to draw a number of strategy cards based on the following formula:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Draw 1 card for every three full Infantry Regiments.</li><li>Draw 1 card for having at least one Cavalry Regiment.</li><li>Draw 1 card for having at least one Artillery Battery.</li><li>You may always draw at least one Strategy card.</li><li>You may not draw more than three Strategy cards.</li></ul><p></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Conditions</h4><p><i>For this battle I drew the Reduced Visibility condition card, reducing all line of sight to 18" and any ranged attack beyond one square being at D6-2.</i></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Objectives</h4><p><i>The Eastonians drew the following objectives:</i></p><p><i>Primary: Place a Bounty token on each of your opponent's three most expensive units. 2 VPs if at least one of these units is eliminated. 1 VP for each of these units eliminated in melee. (This latter clause is impossible for Skirmishers as they cannot enter close combat in OHW.)</i></p><p><i>Secondary: 2 VPs if the total points (companies/squadrons) you eliminated if higher than the total eliminated by your opponent.</i></p><p><i>The Westonian objectives are:</i></p><p><i>Primary: 3 VPs if you have more strength (companies/squadrons) within two squares of the exact center of the board than your opponent. 2 VPs if you hold or contest the Base Objective on your half of the board.</i></p><p><i>Secondary: 2 VP if you hold or contest the Base Objective on your side of the board.</i></p><p><i>Because the Base Objective is a part of the Westonian objectives, and they are repeated twice, I decided that the two base objectives were the east road (column A, row 3) and the west road (column f, row 3).</i></p><p>You might be wondering what value VPs hold for OHW. To my mind VPs will determine the 'winner', which in turn will determine how much of the casualties from the battle will be returned as dead, wounded, or effective. The winner will have more casualties returned as effective than the loser.</p><p>Also note the difference in potential victory points. The Eastonians have a potential of 4 VPs from Bounties, 2 VPs from melee, and 2 VPs for inflicting more damage, for a total of 8 VPs (of which 6 VPs are only feasible). The Westonians have a potential of 3 VPs for holding the center, 2 VPs for holding the east road, and 2 VPs for holding the west road. As they only have two units, they cannot hold the center and both roads, so only 5 VPs are feasible.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Stratagems</h4><p><i>Both sides get one Strategy card. The Eastonians draw:</i></p><p><i>Sudden Faith: Subtract 1 from a nerve test made by you or your opponent. (Because OHW does not use nerve tests, but represents morale in terms of hits, this means that the first loss of hits to your unit will be one less than what is rolled, to a minimum of 0.)</i></p><p><i>The Westonians draw:</i></p><p><i>Stolen March: You may deploy your units up to one square closer to the center line than normally allowed in this scenario.</i></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Deploy Forces</h3><p>As they Eastonians won the tactical advantage, the Westonians must deploy first. Because of the Strategy card they may either play it at the start, and deploy on row 1, or choose not to play it and enter row 1 on the first turn. Further, they may choose to flank march with one of their two units. Let's determine which deployment they will use.</p>
<table border="1">
<thead><tr><td><b>First Die Roll</b></td><td><b>Second Die Roll</b></td><td><b>Result</b></td></tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>1-4</td><td>1-2</td><td>Infantry unit deploys on C1. Cavalry unit marches on turn 1.</td></tr>
<tr><td>1-4</td><td>3-6</td><td>Infantry unit deploys on C1. Cavalry unit deploys on B1.</td></tr>
<tr><td>5-6</td><td>1</td><td>Infantry unit marches on turn 1. Cavalry unit marches on right flank.</td></tr>
<tr><td>5-6</td><td>2-4</td><td>Infantry unit deploys on C1. Cavalry unit marches on right flank.</td></tr>
<tr><td>5-6</td><td>5</td><td>Cavalry unit marches on turn 1. Infantry unit marches on right flank.</td></tr>
<tr><td>5-6</td><td>6</td><td>Cavalry unit deploys on C1. Infantry unit marches on right flank.</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I chose the basic plan as the Infantry attacking through the Farm and securing Firnskuppe for 3 VPs while the Cavalry would secure the west road (where the main army is coming from). However the die roll could indicate otherwise.</p><p><i>I rolled a 3 followed by a 5, so both the Westonian Infantry and Cavalry will start on board, in squares C1 and B1, respectively. The Eastonian Skirmisher will start in Firnskuppe.</i></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-style: italic; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhMoRiPMSMTtD3ID9Nmn46Hnkb9Fm-Un2vPlSnBm-LZcfUDdMcbDecEXSOTjqcs8TWe8OUETfY9H2BfEFiCFuwVQuBuTuOVx_AOuVIJTFfn06ntZ-JMc8I4l8bfWWyAerH-E-01q6i-AgMKu1FyKIf353I-qWsX-yqfQIe59DIfZ7Cnx6B9JbOOULOjrw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="1320" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhMoRiPMSMTtD3ID9Nmn46Hnkb9Fm-Un2vPlSnBm-LZcfUDdMcbDecEXSOTjqcs8TWe8OUETfY9H2BfEFiCFuwVQuBuTuOVx_AOuVIJTFfn06ntZ-JMc8I4l8bfWWyAerH-E-01q6i-AgMKu1FyKIf353I-qWsX-yqfQIe59DIfZ7Cnx6B9JbOOULOjrw=w200-h200" width="200" /></a></div><br /><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 1</h2><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Westonian (Red)</h3><p>Infantry moves from C1 to C2. Cavalry moves from B1 through A2 to A3. No fire.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Eastonian (Blue)</h3><p>Skirmisher holds. No fire is allowed due to the Reduced Visibility condition. The Eastonian commander attempts to roll his CCR (or lower) and fails. They cannot retreat.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhO9RCHcmkjqlZhkJ6HCecgaNdP1AOs94KYn6x2f0ZAUUad-d6aK8EnsJIpsfKeBABaHpQX7BgD9WWnnwrJnW0S3mpR-683N7SobJScQTRVHX26vuM_635MONXBI35EhiO6-sFkOC8UsP9DinvjgCjLPX_FlvlMctXMMltGHsP_2oTJ7-06z2-reDpR2Q" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="1320" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhO9RCHcmkjqlZhkJ6HCecgaNdP1AOs94KYn6x2f0ZAUUad-d6aK8EnsJIpsfKeBABaHpQX7BgD9WWnnwrJnW0S3mpR-683N7SobJScQTRVHX26vuM_635MONXBI35EhiO6-sFkOC8UsP9DinvjgCjLPX_FlvlMctXMMltGHsP_2oTJ7-06z2-reDpR2Q=w200-h200" width="200" /></a></div><br /><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 2</h2><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Red</h3><p>It is pretty clear that Red will have the worst of the musketry exchange as the Infantry will fire at D6-2 from C3 to C4, but the Skirmishers will only take ½ casualties due to the cover from the Village. They, in turn, will fire back at D6-2 and the Infantry will have no cover from the Fields. Nonetheless, the Infantry needs to soften the Skirmishers up before the Cavalry is allowed to charge in.</p><p>Infantry moves from C2 to C3. Cavalry holds. There is no firing.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Blue</h3><p>Skirmishers fire, but score no hits. The Eastonians succeed in rolling their CCR, so they now have the option of retreating from the battlefield.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi-ZLXrfFP97FsA2Xp-6qT7gl_lGrdHqXY3fPH0YFSxNupIq6E2mmoQnvaQQsDdPjrjZrylmyABTQUakTmYsfJa4Hg_NTRZMg4yS2dzLB0wlEBzT7bVYdnUwg5dtW4rFfZJw_XwAo1ffe-ARjhc9SFabVS9y6skgoOHw85prGM9_Vt9QgKQlehTuqAOpA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="1320" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi-ZLXrfFP97FsA2Xp-6qT7gl_lGrdHqXY3fPH0YFSxNupIq6E2mmoQnvaQQsDdPjrjZrylmyABTQUakTmYsfJa4Hg_NTRZMg4yS2dzLB0wlEBzT7bVYdnUwg5dtW4rFfZJw_XwAo1ffe-ARjhc9SFabVS9y6skgoOHw85prGM9_Vt9QgKQlehTuqAOpA" width="240" /></a></div><br /><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 3</h2><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Red</h3><p>Cavalry holds. Infantry fires, with the Skirmishers playing their stratagem, also resulting in no hits.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Blue</h3><p>Skirmishers fire, scoring 3 hits.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiJPRvNmqrYXlvt3Yn8LuQOPDXE4FsQqVh4hP1pLPJY7Nj05PHxT1XNzds8QT6Z4u0VTfNzJMKOlOYiX8k3EJoHxRq_Pge48jFWIeDbdS0OmNTBGW9Rpl2j36bBWKsKxWSLZ61V9t6LSDzUnePesekOnY4EnORM8v21opIoV-s2jC2jLa0sSoOXFssKxA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="1320" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiJPRvNmqrYXlvt3Yn8LuQOPDXE4FsQqVh4hP1pLPJY7Nj05PHxT1XNzds8QT6Z4u0VTfNzJMKOlOYiX8k3EJoHxRq_Pge48jFWIeDbdS0OmNTBGW9Rpl2j36bBWKsKxWSLZ61V9t6LSDzUnePesekOnY4EnORM8v21opIoV-s2jC2jLa0sSoOXFssKxA" width="240" /></a></div><br /><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turns 4, 5, and 6</h2><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Red</h3><p>Cavalry holds. Infantry fires, scoring no hits.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Blue</h3><p>Skirmishers fire, scoring no hits.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 7</h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">Red</h3><p>Cavalry moves from A3 to B4. Infantry fires, scoring 2 hits.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Blue</h3><p>Skirmishers fire, scoring 3 hits.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjvwmvOhUs8evPMLxUjNNuV36rkkvxTgc4eJq6z7ZQVAv6KaGEui-QAVNjLfSdLeFL99mo-mI1nRpISdMhQ3fqoayqhloTwrBYYyfCRA1yRh-a3DC8Uww-u2PAsVHT1JXPaCMZcTI1FvONajn00YfxREQ2aJKPvvKuFwoWbQPg3GCI35qNpi5ezSb_ycA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="1320" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjvwmvOhUs8evPMLxUjNNuV36rkkvxTgc4eJq6z7ZQVAv6KaGEui-QAVNjLfSdLeFL99mo-mI1nRpISdMhQ3fqoayqhloTwrBYYyfCRA1yRh-a3DC8Uww-u2PAsVHT1JXPaCMZcTI1FvONajn00YfxREQ2aJKPvvKuFwoWbQPg3GCI35qNpi5ezSb_ycA=w200-h200" width="200" /></a></div><br />The Red Infantry is now down to 9 hits, having lost two companies, while the Blue Skirmishers has only lost ⅓ of a squadron. Seeing that the Red Cavalry is flanking them, but have entered the Fields where they will be slow in exiting them, it looks like a good time to retreat. The Westonians will have 5 VPs and the Eastonians 4 VPs; a very narrow victory for the Westonians.<p></p><p>The Firskuppen Husaren withdraw down the east road to warn the garrison in Erlenloch that the Westonians are coming, and the battle draws to a close.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgqxCKJPE8gPkItIDKP4I-iTh6gas5ZMvVovYw6HQopz5bJjWKlGX6cOWuTKodff8VA6kYx0IG5CO3cbugLZrQ41LPoKU7RrD1yJfeTz_8Db4034rx7BSIiDuGNYkiAvmtdzgbmY8VUDWLx3qicK3I1ociuB5vZDjjcMFT3e76VYPsESXPuh2TwAaoznA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1320" data-original-width="1320" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgqxCKJPE8gPkItIDKP4I-iTh6gas5ZMvVovYw6HQopz5bJjWKlGX6cOWuTKodff8VA6kYx0IG5CO3cbugLZrQ41LPoKU7RrD1yJfeTz_8Db4034rx7BSIiDuGNYkiAvmtdzgbmY8VUDWLx3qicK3I1ociuB5vZDjjcMFT3e76VYPsESXPuh2TwAaoznA=w200-h200" width="200" /></a></div><br />I will be picking up on how to deal with casualties and convert from OHW units to campaign units back on my <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com" target="_blank">Dale's Wargames blog</a>.<p></p>
<blockquote><i>Please note that I have started using Amazon affiliate links for any Amazon product I feature in my blog posts. You don't have to use them, of course, but anything Amazon gives me does not affect the price you pay, so using it contributes to my caffeine-fueled blog posts' funding.</i></blockquote>Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-51338499169189823742022-01-22T02:00:00.000-07:002022-01-22T02:00:12.879-07:00Review of Adjutant Introuvable and Test Game<p><i><a href="https://www.wargaming3d.com/product/adjutant-introuvable/" target="_blank">Adjutant Introuvable</a></i> by Nic Birt is billed as an "Auto Strategy System for Miniature Wargames". </p>
<blockquote><i>Adjustant Introuvable (AI) aims to provide a strategy (the overall plan) to the absent opponent when engaging in solo wargames. AI attempts to maintain a reactive and dynamic plan throughout the battle through some general tactical guidance.<br /><br />Strategy is fairly generic across historical military periods and therefore this system is appropriate for most ages from ancient to modern. However, the tactics have changed … and for this reason the tactical level of AI is provided in simple generic terms that will require interpretation to suite (sic) particular armies.</i></blockquote>
<p>So now we understand what the rules are trying to accomplish, let's review what I think a good programmed opponent provide. Generally speaking, it must answer these four questions:</p>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Which side gets to act next?</li><li>Which unit gets to act next?</li><li>Which actions will the acting unit take?</li><li>How will the acting unit execute those actions?</li></ul>
<p>As previously noted, so rules answer these questions automatically, without the use of special "solo gaming" mechanisms. For example, if you are using rules that are IGO-UGO the answer to the question "Which side gets to act next?" is taken care of. Whatever side is the active side gets to act next until their turn is complete.</p><p>For games where the turn sequence consists of phases where all units perform the same actions at once, in any order the player likes (most IGO-UGO rules), the question of "Which unit gets to act next?" is also generally moot. This usually only comes up when two units are trying to move through the same physical space, in which the player generally moves the unit that can move the farthest first, so its movement is not blocked by the slower unit.</p><p>For rules where a unit can move, fire, and conduct close combat all in a single turn, the question "Which actions will the acting unit take?" tends to be less critical of a decision than in rules where, say, a unit can only move <u>or</u> fire. Nonetheless, this is where the programmed opponent starts to come into play as you need to know what the objective the unit is trying to accomplish.</p><p>Finally, few solo game systems answer the last question. In order to specify "How will the acting unit execute those actions?" they likely need to be written specifically for the rules you are using and possibly even the scenario and side you are playing. (The new <i>Undaunted: Reinforcements</i>, which I hope to be reviewing and testing here soon, would be an example.)</p><p>Before we take a look at how <i>AI</i> handles these questions, we note that "<i>AI</i> has been designed to work with wargame rule systems that operate with an alternating turn sequence (one side moves, then the opponent moves, and repeat). It is assumed the average game length will be between 6 and 12 of these double turns. For an effective use of the strategy plans it is best to have at least 10 units that are deployed by the <i>AI</i> side." For this reason I will be using the rules <i>One-Hour Wargames</i> (<i>OHW</i>), <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2019/12/one-hour-wargames.html" target="_blank">which I have reviewed here</a>, only modified for using a 6" square grid.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Setup</h2>
<p>The first task is to divide the board into a three-by-three grid. Given that out board is already nicely divided into a six-by-six grid, the <i>AI</i> grid cell will contain four cells of the board. Note that this makes counting terrain values (see later) much easier.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhEDO1mjB0xoOq5KQdJ1qP65KYMvmpdMJn9wuGTQFvXmPunTFTYXCDNIdQqaIT_nOg0D-b_oaEgX9olkXTbJyaTDX3mDEj0d6uR4c3h8OILbD4K6Yey7zrGwT_wF1rB6im-S5Tvl6QE9BC7ndhXhAKE-fZZ4DAGbtQ9QhtbwgBakilv5JuKPTJNs2iizw=s500" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhEDO1mjB0xoOq5KQdJ1qP65KYMvmpdMJn9wuGTQFvXmPunTFTYXCDNIdQqaIT_nOg0D-b_oaEgX9olkXTbJyaTDX3mDEj0d6uR4c3h8OILbD4K6Yey7zrGwT_wF1rB6im-S5Tvl6QE9BC7ndhXhAKE-fZZ4DAGbtQ9QhtbwgBakilv5JuKPTJNs2iizw=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>Set up the battlefield as normal and deploy the player's forces while also providing orders for the first turn. If the player wishes to simply react to the programmed opponent then the player may not make any moves for the first two turns.</p><p>In this test game I have decided to play the defending side in a battle similar to Guilford Courthouse, of the American War of Independence. The Patriots are therefore initially passive, firing at the advancing British, so counting them as passive seems the better option.</p><p><i>AI</i> provides nine strategy cards, which outline the plan for how the programmed opponent will conduct battlefield operations (at a high level). The rules direct you to draw three randomly and then perform a calculation for each strategy to determine which of the three to use. The strategies are named: Equal Attack; Center Attack; Left Flank Attack; Right Flank Attack; Envelop From Left; Envelop From Right; Oblique Left Attack; Oblique Right Attack; and Ambush. I chose randomly and drew Envelop From Left, Envelop From Right; and Center Attack.</p><p>The strategy calculation consists of looking at the aggressiveness of the strategy on the left, center, and right and comparing it to the terrain in the left, center, and right. Here is what the board looks like, set up.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEguZttp8ypvk9fV5cGjbtjeZRUymJBJ1E1KeAwz8KrSLHA5WOoC2E7Rm9DZitdcn2mOqF-OCSS3lceVgjjuPBA6bdJexLlASZ8q2Upz_ysgAbRQuvio-JTaoy0NJQwECBhPLspRZFzSdIz3rN1u1le3qbDHDE2z8CPOBfNxS2p-2_g5f03HWMrQMpBDHg=s600" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="520" data-original-width="600" height="554" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEguZttp8ypvk9fV5cGjbtjeZRUymJBJ1E1KeAwz8KrSLHA5WOoC2E7Rm9DZitdcn2mOqF-OCSS3lceVgjjuPBA6bdJexLlASZ8q2Upz_ysgAbRQuvio-JTaoy0NJQwECBhPLspRZFzSdIz3rN1u1le3qbDHDE2z8CPOBfNxS2p-2_g5f03HWMrQMpBDHg=w640-h554" width="640" /></a></div><p>As shown in the image above, the map contains a grid for easy reference to terrain, units, movement, and combat.</p>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>E1 contains a Town. (In this scale, it is a Courthouse and outbuildings.)</li><li>B2 contains the West side of a Hill and a Patriot Infantry unit with 15 hits remaining.</li><li>C2 contains the East side of a Hill and a Patriot Infantry unit with 15 hits remaining.</li><li>D2 contains a Patriot Artillery unit with 15 hits remaining.</li><li>E2 contains the North side of a Plowed Field.</li><li>F2 contains a Patriot Cavalry unit with 15 hits remaining.</li><li>E3 contains the South side of a Plowed Field.</li><li>A4 contains the West side of a Woods.</li><li>B4 contains the East side of a Woods and a Patriot Skirmisher (Rifle) unit with 10 hits remaining.</li><li>C4 contains a Stone Wall and a Patriot Infantry (Militia) unit with 10 hits remaining.</li><li>D4 contains a Stone Wall and a Patriot Infantry (Militia) unit with 10 hits remaining.</li><li>E4 contains a Woods and a Patriot Skirmisher unit with 10 hits remaining.</li></ul>
<p>With the terrain set up and the player's units deployed, it is time to determine which strategy <i>AI</i> will use. You start by calculating the strength of each strategy versus the terrain it is facing. Each strategy card shows whether the left, center, and right sectors (indicated by the red grid) are moving rapidly, advancing, ambushing, or holding. You use a table that compares that strategy to the terrain found in that sector to derive a score, which is then combined to determine how effective the strategy is to this scenario. The highest score of the three selected strategies is the strategy that the programmed opponent will use.</p><p>Without going into the details of the formulas (that is what the $5 price is for), the Envelop From Left strategy calls for a rapid advance on the left, holding in the center, and an advance on the right. The Envelop From Right is the mirror to that. Finally, Center Attack is an advance on the left and right and a rapid advance in the center. The significance of the movement (hold, advance, etc.) is how far through the board the program intends to advance. Hold only considers the programmed opponent's baseline ares (rows 5 and 6 in this case). Advance considers up through no man's land (rows 3 through 6), and rapid advance considers all rows in the sector. Let's compare the scores.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Envelop From Left</b></h3><p>The Rapid Advance on the left starts (reading from the opponent's baseline) with Open terrain (0 points), then moves through the Woods (-1 point), then ends in Hill terrain (-1 point) for a total of -2 points.</p><p>The Hold action in the center only considers the Open terrain on its baseline, which gives it a score of -1.</p><p>The Advance on the right scores 0 points for the Open terrain and -1 for the Woods in no man's land, for a total of -1.</p><p>After scoring each sector a random factor of 0-3 points is added for a total. This strategy earned a -3 (after rolling +1 point for the random factor).</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Envelope From Right</b></h3><p>I will condense these down to Left -1, Center -1, and Right -2, Random 0 for a total of -4.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Center Attack</b></h3><p>Left -1, Center -2, Right -1, Random +1 for a total of -3.</p><p>Because Envelop From Left and Center Attack are tied, there would normally be a roll off. However, I have decided to go with a Center Attack because Woods in <i>OHW</i> are essentially impassable terrain to five of the six units that the British have, thus attacking troops would have to flow through to the center, making this a Center Attack of sorts anyway.</p><p>With the strategy decided we now need to deploy the units to either the left flank, center, right flank, or the reserves. Troops are categorized as either Regular, Mobile, or Support. This is cross-referenced with the mission (Advance, Rapid Advance, Hold, or Ambush) and the target terrain (the terrain in the grid indicated by the mission). This yields a die roll to indicate if the unit is deployed in that sector or not.</p><p>Essentially you are rolling a die for each unit to determine if it is assigned to a specific mission, rolling for them in the order of Ambush, Rapid Advance, Advance, and Hold. Any units not assigned to those missions are placed in the Reserve.</p><p>So I have four Infantry, one Cavalry, and one Skirmisher. Starting with the Infantry (Regular) and rolling to assign to the Rapid Advance in the Center, with the target terrain of the Hill, I would need a 5+ to have a unit assigned. I roll 2, 2, 3, 5 so one Infantry unit is assigned to the Center. Next rolling for the Cavalry and Skirmisher (Mobile), still for the Center, I would need 4+ to have a unit assigned. I roll 2, 3 so neither is assigned.</p><p>Now I do the same for the Left, which is an Advance to the Woods. Infantry needs a 4+ and Mobile needs a 6. Because one Infantry is already assigned to the Center, I only have three Infantry remaining to assign. I roll 1, 1, 6 so one Infantry is assigned. I roll 5, 5 so no Mobile is assigned to the Left.</p><p>Finally I do the Right, which is an Advance to the Woods. Only two Infantry to assign and I roll 3, 6 so one gets assigned to the Right. I roll 2, 6 for the Mobile and the Cavalry gets assigned to the Right. (I rolled off to see whether it was the Skirmisher or the Cavalry.)</p><p>The remaining Infantry and Skirmisher unit gets assigned to the Reserve, which according to the strategy card, is behind the Center.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">So Now What?</h2><p>Now, it is time to start fighting the battle. When it is their time to act each mission force (sector) will roll a die, cross reference it to their mission, add or subtract 1 based on how well the mission is going, and get a Tactic to use for that turn. (Troops in the Reserve will deploy on a 5+.) The tactics are as follows.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Charge - move rapidly towards objective, initiate combat whenever a win is possible, and bypass strong opposition.</li><li>Engage - move steadily toward objective, initiate combat only when favorable results are probable.</li><li>Probe - move cautiously, initiate limited disruptive combat when favorable result is most likely.</li><li>React - hold ground, initiate combat only against weakened or breaking opponent.</li><li>Relieve - retire to advantage, make defensive formations and positions.</li></ul><p></p><p>These tactics are listed on each strategy card, along with the die rolls needed for each action.</p><p>Some of these will be hard to interpret, especially where in this scenario the programmed opponent starts within musket range of my troops. Here is the final setup.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhRb-OLu67O0WaqSvTx77uBuUCFxBJv5B7Z4pTboLUzxBxg47gVyPBj6T1OBkZyaYnuFw0hF2fxtkKlUseUaNHmDZzlBj22yGD4LGXPcOgRkBe-iIIR9rNlTnKXK22EGEGaAKxJBdFRAUVElZhdR5xxn3zt3hBTGLutL-SH4h4Piw95ynGj81svx10cBw=s600" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhRb-OLu67O0WaqSvTx77uBuUCFxBJv5B7Z4pTboLUzxBxg47gVyPBj6T1OBkZyaYnuFw0hF2fxtkKlUseUaNHmDZzlBj22yGD4LGXPcOgRkBe-iIIR9rNlTnKXK22EGEGaAKxJBdFRAUVElZhdR5xxn3zt3hBTGLutL-SH4h4Piw95ynGj81svx10cBw=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div><p>As you can see, two of the British Infantry are Elite, and thus have 20 hits remaining, while all other units have 15 hits remaining.</p>
<blockquote><i>There is a tendency in rules to make militia and elite troops overly weak or strong, in comparison to regular troops. For example, I have seen them being given modifiers to hit, i.e. the ability to inflict casualties, while simultaneously giving them morale modifiers, i.e. the ability to withstand casualties. Although many would say this is correct, I believe it is not in that the accuracy of the musket is horrendous (especially after fouling from a few shots) and thus the difference in the three types to inflict casualties is negligible. To me, the best way to represent quality of troops is to rate their ability to stay combat effective, which in terms of OHW, it the number of hits it can sustain.</i></blockquote>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 1</h2>
<p>The British start first. Looking at my strategy card the Center will Charge on a 4+, Engage on a 1-3, and Probe on a 0-. This is a D6 roll with a -1 because it is one British (Elite) Infantry against two Patriot (Militia) Infantry behind cover. I roll a 1 making it 0, thus the British decide to stand and fire.</p><p>On the left and right flanks they are advancing, so the cards says to Engage on a 5+, Probe on a 2-4, and React on a 1-. Both the left and right flanks get a Probe result. The Infantry will stand and fire while the Cavalry will hold in place.</p>
<p>Because this is the first turn, there is no roll for reinforcements.</p><p>As stated earlier, the best solo systems answer all four questions in some way. What action the units will take has been answered (firing instead of moving, for all three cases), but the answer to the last question, which is how to execute the action, i.e. which unit do I fire at, may not be clear. The rules do state that the combat should have a "favorable result". So, what is that?</p><p>In <i>OHW</i> I often analyze combat in terms of Average Turns to Eliminate (ATE), or the number of turns, on average, it takes to eliminate the enemy unit. In this case the British Infantry roll 1D6 to determine the number of hits inflicted on the enemy, so 3.5 hits per turn. Units in cover, such as in Woods or behind a Stone Wall, take 1/2 the hits, rounded up. If the target has 15 hits then Infantry's ATE is 5 if the target is not in cover and 8 if the target is.</p>
<p>In the case of the left flank Infantry firing, both targets in range are in cover so both are equally valid. One could next look at the hits remaining (essentially the ATE) to determine the weakest target, and thus the most vulnerable and therefore the higher chance of success. Again, both targets have the same number of hits, so the ATE is tied. At this point either target is equally valid and the rules are thus silent on selection, so presumably a die roll would be in order. However, one additional difference to not is which target can <i>inflict</i> more damage (thus making them more of a threat), i.e. what is the target's ATE against <i>you</i>. In this case the Patriot (Militia) Infantry is lower and therefore the greatest threat. That said, I am going to shoot straight forward and into the sector where my mission is located.</p>
<p>On the right flank the case is largely the same: fire at a Skirmisher in the Woods or an Infantry behind a Stone Wall? The difference is that if the Infantry fires on the enemy Infantry, it is potentially doubling up its fire against that target.</p><p>Here is the result of the British first turn.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhU6yduKMiYl8f-Cw_dbV3V15QcXx9ntSnBmqrW3ThwzV7NWeI10i2v30ZfUQmNFZ4LVo7vrsQsO91kX9J9VWD90mDBA9FXJPzm1XZLPCEwnPMbsGXikQQUU_E7KgfyO_6J4x8YrZgyuOsbqOFH9pmVSHoIrYXBT851PH9xFT2CVnJoNtWyh18km2H-qQ=s600" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhU6yduKMiYl8f-Cw_dbV3V15QcXx9ntSnBmqrW3ThwzV7NWeI10i2v30ZfUQmNFZ4LVo7vrsQsO91kX9J9VWD90mDBA9FXJPzm1XZLPCEwnPMbsGXikQQUU_E7KgfyO_6J4x8YrZgyuOsbqOFH9pmVSHoIrYXBT851PH9xFT2CVnJoNtWyh18km2H-qQ=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>Remember, because I did not write order before the British set up, I am hampered from making any moves for turn 1 and 2, which is acceptable as I am simply going to fire at the attacking British. Here is the end of turn 1.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj5LSUxtxkyTqp86Bc0mrZ18MU0voe5vblj5tbLMThjjtVxTwZjwNkT0kdKhEBa__MCIkk_3pm8mtvYUOpyF9MGQBTB1DkX8RBM0eL5RyY9OGteb-lpdMz5KyiHChT7FHEo1zaPxkOGyyG6o5Zi_4ARTh8IftBCzV2ZqFJXbrbiFElrPsRMoZ5ucYSQoQ=s600" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj5LSUxtxkyTqp86Bc0mrZ18MU0voe5vblj5tbLMThjjtVxTwZjwNkT0kdKhEBa__MCIkk_3pm8mtvYUOpyF9MGQBTB1DkX8RBM0eL5RyY9OGteb-lpdMz5KyiHChT7FHEo1zaPxkOGyyG6o5Zi_4ARTh8IftBCzV2ZqFJXbrbiFElrPsRMoZ5ucYSQoQ=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>While the Skirmishers on the left muffed their shot, the right taught the enemy Infantry to ignore it at its own peril. The two Militia Infantry in the center absolutely pounded the center British Infantry. Had it not been an elite unit (starting with 20 hits), it would now be within one good die roll of being eliminated.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 2</h2><p>As with the first turn, each sector needs to roll its tactics, and reinforcements can be rolled for.</p><p>Left - Probe; Center - Charge; Right - Engage; Reserve - no reinforcements.</p><p>The Center charges as the British realize that they cannot afford to slug it out with the two Militia units. Because it moves forward, the British Infantry moving to D5 now blocks the Infantry in E6 from firing on the Militia in D4.</p><p>On the Right the Cavalry moves forward. If it moved to F4 it risks being fired upon by the Artillery and charged by the enemy Cavalry, so it only moves to F5.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjXwzXwD9CL3tkEbsFNkb4X4OHslWgw0cKSPUKNfRLIW4OzlxuJNE0FWVJLIciCbuaU7_meq4nlnYjGWHJXg84sNByEUeDsAKAzBN2g2juYeWA9uel48ann3ZlTIPoLtYXqe_R88Dp2I54uvsqkTt3swuTV2VdIiU4SeUlyJrynsnzdxmfaQwBwY5N7Xw=s600" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjXwzXwD9CL3tkEbsFNkb4X4OHslWgw0cKSPUKNfRLIW4OzlxuJNE0FWVJLIciCbuaU7_meq4nlnYjGWHJXg84sNByEUeDsAKAzBN2g2juYeWA9uel48ann3ZlTIPoLtYXqe_R88Dp2I54uvsqkTt3swuTV2VdIiU4SeUlyJrynsnzdxmfaQwBwY5N7Xw=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div><p>This is the last turn in which the Patriots cannot react, so all they do is fire.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg-uXwRuKvIXKHtHXBcXmfASY-Fq3xlElZyGzTgBTaTBPLZeTgOUzF9fsCUoe_nm0KHH1gHoMluyOMMaelGbv41UpIUfxAGqyuQDWXVmMdS2h4QGq9JR_qLtHDWbFVVbg3JnGPrvL4d-RT0m45-eOZ9FurzSmEXe5d0bkAY09YTUZFXmAjAUlbO3TcYXA=s600" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg-uXwRuKvIXKHtHXBcXmfASY-Fq3xlElZyGzTgBTaTBPLZeTgOUzF9fsCUoe_nm0KHH1gHoMluyOMMaelGbv41UpIUfxAGqyuQDWXVmMdS2h4QGq9JR_qLtHDWbFVVbg3JnGPrvL4d-RT0m45-eOZ9FurzSmEXe5d0bkAY09YTUZFXmAjAUlbO3TcYXA=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div><p>The British Grenadiers in D5 are looking pretty bad. With it being 'outnumbered', it is unlikely to be able to roll a 'Charge' result. This is one thing I have a criticism about with chance-oriented programs. It sometimes feels like 'morale' is baked into the results. Shouldn't the core rules cover morale, rather than the solo mechanics?</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Turn 3</h2>
<p>As with last turn, each sector needs to roll its tactics, and reinforcements can be rolled for.</p><p>Left - Engage; Center - Charge; Right - React; Reserve - no reinforcements.</p>
<p>The British on the left and right flanks continue to fire, but the cavalry stands. The British Grenadiers in the center rolled well and can continue the charge. Had they rolled less, they would have stood and fired, which would have been a bad result.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgLeibW0akDCn4RpFVfKSGCa_GfZVjyUOiSeSxI2uMjI9JJ1qHy59GXmjyolWWNJaJT03h-S0Kji-B70rTeE3aLXeVuXFZqZyCGqn_BwZJf7aKfMznecctm9ApUVANsDNjC1sBYRVwoTxh1Zm8-QRf5yzeM8kdVuz4uvpptIqCNdYjUqLpDweKxdVzK0A=s600" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgLeibW0akDCn4RpFVfKSGCa_GfZVjyUOiSeSxI2uMjI9JJ1qHy59GXmjyolWWNJaJT03h-S0Kji-B70rTeE3aLXeVuXFZqZyCGqn_BwZJf7aKfMznecctm9ApUVANsDNjC1sBYRVwoTxh1Zm8-QRf5yzeM8kdVuz4uvpptIqCNdYjUqLpDweKxdVzK0A=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>This was a good turn for the British. Both the Infantry units on the left and right flanks scored a '6', resulting in 3 hits each on the Patriot Skirmish units. The British Grenadiers charged, inflicting a single hit and forcing the Patriot Militia to retreat.</p>
<blockquote><i>Note: British Infantry being able to charge into hand-to-hand combat and forcing Patriot Infantry and Skirmishers to retreat from hand-to-hand combat is not a normal rule for the OHW Horse and Musket rules, but is added by <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2019/12/american-war-of-independence-variant.html" target="_blank">my AWI variant</a>.</i></blockquote>
<p>Now that the first two turns are up, I can finally order my Patriot units freely. At this point, however, I am going to leave the battle report. The idea was to test the AI system and see it in action.</p><h1 style="text-align: left;">Summary</h1><p>Let me start by saying these rules are a mere $5, can be purchased online, and are delivered as a PDF. It is value for money. All of that said, to me it is an 'idea generator' rather than a full blown system of a programmed opponent. I see that these sort of systems can cover the following mechanics: overall battle plan; distribution of forces; unit deployment; unit mission; and unit tactics.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Overall Battle Plan</h2><p>Basically the goal is to help the player come up with a basic strategy for the programmed opponent. AI does this providing you nine basic battle plans. Providing you a formula to calculate the best attack strategy based on terrain is very valuable. If fact, I think that is the singular best idea in these rules. For once a system takes terrain into account, giving it a value. Most points systems, for example, do not take the value of terrain into account, unless it is man-made like an entrenchment or a fortification. AI looks at the terrain within reach of your mission (how deep onto the battlefield you intend to take) and evaluates the difficulty of achieving it.</p><p>The only issue I take with the formula is that there are certain unstated value judgments built into that formula. For example, one element that kept coming up while using AI was that the rules I was using, OHW, does not allow most units to enter woods at all. Many rules take the approach that woods slow movement and provide cover, so the idea that you can attack a woods with any unit is somewhat universal. If you are using something like OHW where you can shoot at units defending a woods, but can never take it, the formulation should actually be harsher for the woods being present.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhxa0oiiBz7aNoM4Jl574uedaZBzmVORYbgvf0QVwiWzKJdf4jxmOieiGS4xQLU_HZgGdfRWONsiN3m5SNnQVaxxTT-6xvq_C58TB0vd62JStgJl87VrqVr_9FfDo8fJ52EenSfEpzjPXx5OxJ0emJ4ZJl0ooHtkRWyiMHaplsckvSfDkIVoZysRRiV-g=s500" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhxa0oiiBz7aNoM4Jl574uedaZBzmVORYbgvf0QVwiWzKJdf4jxmOieiGS4xQLU_HZgGdfRWONsiN3m5SNnQVaxxTT-6xvq_C58TB0vd62JStgJl87VrqVr_9FfDo8fJ52EenSfEpzjPXx5OxJ0emJ4ZJl0ooHtkRWyiMHaplsckvSfDkIVoZysRRiV-g=w400-h400" width="400" /></a></div><p>In the example above, if your mission is to rapidly advance on the left, i.e. advance to the enemy's row, the presence of the woods in row 2 makes this impossible if, say, your line infantry, cavalry, and artillery cannot pass through the woods and only your light infantry can. You could put infantry units in row 3 to shoot out the defenders, but at some point your infantry, cavalry, and artillery will have to bypass the woods through the center, while your light infantry moves in to occupy the woods, keeping the enemy light infantry out while your other forces pass by through the center.</p><p>So, is it perfect? No. It is naturally generic. That is why I say that these rules are great as a starting point, a template from which to build a more specific program that meet your scenario, forces, and rules needs and restrictions.</p><p>One final note: I am not sure why the author wants you to randomly select three possible battle plans, calculate the most effective one, and then use that, rather than having you calculate all of them. Given that you are playing solo, time is one factor that you have on your side. All of this work can be done before you actually lay out the terrain and troops on the board, so even if your time is limited in how long you can keep the game set up, this time calculating does not count against it and can even be done the night before.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Distribution of Forces</h2><p>Again, my experience with this aspect may be colored by OHW not allowing certain unit types to move into Woods, but having a random roll to determine if a unit will be in a given sector feels … random. That said, I don't have a better way of changing the charts so that it makes more sense for OHW.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Unit Deployment</h2><p>This was something that seemed missing. Although AI helped you determine which sector of the battlefield your units were going to be assigned to, no mention on how that unit would be deployed in relation to the other units also assigned to that sector. As I sit here and ponder that question, any such rules would probably be very complex and not work well for all rules, so it is probably just as well that it was not addressed.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Unit Mission</h2><p>I felt like this aspect was something I had not considered, which is the mission of the unit. Granted, the same mission is given to all units in the sector, but the idea a unit would intentionally only advance so far (if at all) until the mission was interesting. Note that missions are always to occupy the terrain in the sector. Generally these might be the objectives in a scenario, so I could see reverse-engineering the overall battle plan based on scenario objectives and victory points.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Unit Tactics</h2><p>This was the one area I felt worked the least because there was so much interpretation as to what each tactic – Charge, Engage, Probe, React, and Relieve – really means. Take a game like OHW. The basic decision is first "Do I move or fire?" This is something many rules avoid as they allow a unit to move and fire in a single turn. It seems like the tactics should be more aligned with how the unit fights. Does it primarily inflict casualties by fire or hand-to-hand combat? If the former, are you in range yet? Do you have range 'bands' (short, medium, long, etc.) which affect effectiveness? If so, which band are you in?</p><p>Considering these types of factors would lead more to rule-based decision making system, rather than one driven by chance elements, but I think it is something to consider.</p><p>As stated previously, there is also an element of morale sprinkled into the tactics table, with less aggressive tactics implying a partial failure of morale being the cause for the less aggressive approach.</p><h1 style="text-align: left;">Final Analysis</h1><p>Overall, how can you say that this is not good value for money at $5? (I hope Nic does not raise his prices after this review! <span style="font-size: xx-small;">😄</span>) There are far better, well thought out ideas that are actually useful to gaming solo than many of the books I have purchased that promise to tell me how to wargame solo. Just consider that, unless the main rules you play fit well into the model published in these solo rules, you should consider this a template for how to convert this process to the rules you use most often; it is a starting point.</p>Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-15640735165820703752021-02-25T09:16:00.001-07:002021-02-25T09:16:28.546-07:00Digging into the Solo Mechanics of Space Marine Adventures<p>So, before I lose you because you don't like Games Workshop, <i>Warhammer 40,000</i> (<i>WH40K</i>), or the space fantasy genre in general let me just say that this is not so much about those subjects, but how Games Workshop approached solo and cooperative play in their board game (with miniatures) <i>Space Marine Adventures</i> (<i>SMA</i>). It is my intent to dig into the solo game mechanics and show how you can apply it to other genres and historical periods, even without buying the game.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--pkDbiJVf9w/YCW9fAVd9QI/AAAAAAAAG0U/GP-FY0ymq-sqNtc_n1B9yYbqcvJgF852QCLcBGAsYHQ/s595/BoxCover.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="595" data-original-width="398" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--pkDbiJVf9w/YCW9fAVd9QI/AAAAAAAAG0U/GP-FY0ymq-sqNtc_n1B9yYbqcvJgF852QCLcBGAsYHQ/w268-h400/BoxCover.jpg" width="268" /></a></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Overview of the Game</h2>
<p>The U.S. bookseller <i>Barnes & Noble</i> has licensed a few Games Workshop properties for sale in their bookstores and online store exclusively. (Some titles may also be exclusively in the U.S.) Most of these games are very simple "gateway" games designed to introduce young players to the miniatures gaming hobby by providing the board, terrain pieces, miniatures, tokens, dice, rules and scenarios all in a book shelf-sized box. In the case of <i>SMA</i> it is intended to introduce new players to the world of <i>WH40K</i> in a format simpler than even <i>Kill Team</i>. Games Workshop has done this before with a number of boxed games, such as <i>Space Crusade</i>, <i>Space Hulk</i>, and others this format is definitely more compact and simpler. Further, this is not a competitive game but rather a co-operative game for 1-4 players, with all of the players playing Space Marines. The enemy, in this case the Necrons (killer zombie robots), are programmed completely, and thus is ultimately a solo game system.</p>
<p>The goal of the game is for the player to progress through a series of three missions, each progressively harder than the previous, with a roster of five Space Marines. Each scenario follows the same basic pattern: the Space Marines enter the game board and have to reach a specific square or eliminate a specific enemy, at which point an exit from the board will be revealed, which the Space Marines will need to pass through in order to win the scenario and progress to the next mission. While the players are attempting to accomplish this more enemies will appear on the board in an attempt to wound and ultimately stop the players from accomplishing the mission.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Solo Game Mechanics</h2>
<p>For me, When I evaluate a game's "programming" for the enemy side I look at how do the rules answer the following questions:</p>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>How do I (the player) determine which side has the next turn?</li>
<li>How do I determine which unit on the enemy (programmed) side acts when it is their turn?</li>
<li>How do I determine what action(s) the enemy unit takes when it is their turn (or if the rules allow it, reactions the unit takes when it is not their turn)?</li><li>How do I determine how the enemy unit executes the action(s), e.g. which path it moves along, which target it shoots at or charges, etc.?</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Which Side Acts Next</h3>
<p>In <i>SMA</i> order of acting is determined by a deck of cards. There are two cards in an activation deck for each individual Space Marine and six cards for all of the Necrons. Each round the player draws a card to determine which side acts next, Space Marines or Necrons. Once all cards are drawn a new turn starts.</p><p>Note that neither side gets to react (act during the other's turn), so this question does not need to be considered.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Which Unit Acts Next</h3>
<p>As indicated above the activation deck determines order. The card drawn indicates either a specific Space Marine that is to act or <i>all</i> Necrons.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">What Actions do the Units Take</h3>
<p>I will ignore the player's units for the moment and focus on only the Necrons, as that is what is part of the enemy "program". As I said earlier, <i>SMA</i> is a very simple game. Unlike <i>Arcadia Quest</i> (which I reviewed its solo rules in a <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2021/01/arcadia-quests-solo-rules.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>) the enemy does not move and attack in their turn. A Necron's turn consists of drawing a card from the mission card deck (called the Labyrinth deck) and following the instructions written there.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cu2PM5UJmKY/YCXLSFpRFVI/AAAAAAAAG0g/SJwdzgpxjRI1SrEOMGq1mdsm8mn2wXtAwCLcBGAsYHQ/s864/LabyrinthCard01.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="560" data-original-width="864" height="414" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cu2PM5UJmKY/YCXLSFpRFVI/AAAAAAAAG0g/SJwdzgpxjRI1SrEOMGq1mdsm8mn2wXtAwCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h414/LabyrinthCard01.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>Scattered on the boards included with the game are six spawn points (called "translocation squares") numbered one through six. On some of the mission cards it indicates which spawn points new Necrons will come in at, as indicated in the image above. In that example by the red arrow, it instructs the player to place a Necron at translocation square "1".</p><p>In the image below, the player has drawn a card indicating that Necrons should be placed at squares "1" and "3".</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6bcCOSmTs5U/YCXMqSOJuXI/AAAAAAAAG0s/mDWxBdW9atARSU4abGbEpaNhCUhNJ6c5ACLcBGAsYHQ/s864/NecronPlacement.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="753" data-original-width="864" height="558" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6bcCOSmTs5U/YCXMqSOJuXI/AAAAAAAAG0s/mDWxBdW9atARSU4abGbEpaNhCUhNJ6c5ACLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h558/NecronPlacement.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>When Necrons are placed, they are placed in the order indicated on the card (typically from the lowest number to the highest). A counter is placed on the translocation square if it is empty of Necrons. If it is not, it is placed on an adjacent square if that is empty of Necrons. If that is not you look at the next adjacent square, and so on, until it is placed. Additionally, if the translocation square already has a counter, you place one Necron in <b>each </b>direction adjacent to it.</p><p>In the example above, when it comes to placing the Necron on "1", because that square is empty the counter will be placed on that square.</p><p>For "3" however, there is already a Necron there so there should be one Necron placed in each adjacent square, labeled "A", "B", and "C".</p><p>Because "A" has a Necron you then check square "D", which is empty, so the Necron is placed in square "D".</p><p>For square "C" there is no Necron, so the new Necron is placed there also.</p><p>Finally, in square "B" there is a player's Space Marine. Because the square is empty of Necrons it would normally be placed there, but because there is an enemy, that placement is considered an attack. The new Necron is eliminated and the Space Marine player takes a wound.</p><p>Coming back to the question: what action(s) do the programmed unit(s) take? The answer is "placement". Placing a unit essentially indicates where future enemy units can be placed and which player units can be attacked.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">How Do the Units Execute Actions</h3><p>As indicated above, placement is the only "action" allowed to the enemy program. If the placement is on the same square as a player's unit, it is considered an attack. The strict placement rules define how the units execute those placement actions. Thus the decision is taken away from the player.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Application to Other Genres</h2>
<p>Okay, so now you have the basics of the solo gaming mechanism, how can you apply this to other genres?</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">The Board</h3>
<p>The first component to consider is the game board or tabletop. There are three elements to account for:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>The paths that the player's units can take and the enemy unit's can be placed.</li><li>The points where the enemy's units can enter the board.</li><li>The locations of the objectives.</li></ol><p></p><p>Personally I think this system needs a grid, whether square or hex, in order to constrain the player's movement (no geometry tricks in order to avoid an enemy attack) and control the enemy placement.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Reinforcements (Labyrinth) Deck</h3><p>To recap a little, each round a card is drawn from the activation deck to determine which side - and in the case of the player, which unit - acts next. When it is the enemy's turn to act, a card is drawn from the labyrinth deck, which acts as a reinforcements and events deck, to determine which enemy reinforcements come on and where they enter.</p><p>Researching out, say, a historical battle you could use the orders of battle and the arrival schedule of units to create the values in the reinforcement deck. As a variant, you might even not randomize the order of the cards in the deck in order to reflect the historical order of appearance of units.</p><p>All each card need do is indicate the reinforcement point(s) where reinforcements will enter. How many will enter can either be dictated by the position of existing friendly and enemy units on the board, as it is with <i>SMA</i>, or it could be stated on the card.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Reinforcement Pool</h3><p>One aspect of <i>SMA</i> that I glossed over is which specific unit type is deployed to the spawn point when the labyrinth deck indicates new units are arriving. Each scenario defined the number of types of units that are in play, e.g. 10 Necron Warriors and 10 Necron Immortals. These units are tossed into a bag and when the card calls for a unit to be deployed, one is randomly pulled from the bag and deployed on the board at the location specified by program.</p><p>The same sort of concept could be employed in other genres, of if playing a historical scenario, you could combine the reinforcement location and unit composition in the reinforcements deck.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Units</h3><p>The Necron units in <i>SMA</i> really only differ in their defense values. As there is no movement, and attacking is by placement automatically inflicting a single wound to the player's unit, the only values a Necron unit has are its type and its defense value. When a player's unit attacks the player rolls a D6, adds or subtracts modifiers, and is looking to equal or exceed the Necron unit's defense value. If it does, the unit is eliminated.</p><p>All units of the same type have the same defense value. Some cards in the labyrinth deck will temporarily modify that value for all units of the indicated type, generally making them tougher to kill.</p><p>The two elements of combat, that an enemy unit inflicts one wound 100% of the time and that a player unit that inflicts a hit on the enemy will destroy it in a single hit, can easily be changed. Both sides' attack and defense values could be created and used, with die rolls determining the outcome of hits and damage for both sides.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Summary</h2><p>The basic structure of <i>SMA</i> provides for an interesting method of programming opponents. In turn, there are a number of variations you can consider.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>If you don't like making cards you can easily convert the deck to a table where you make rolls. It does change the dynamics some as, once a card is played it cannot be played again. (Once the deck is played, the game is over, so all cards are only played once, at most.)</li><li>Some people do not like deterministic combat so you can inject any sort of chance element you like, or even your favorite combat system.</li><li>There is another variation of <i>SMA</i> called <i>Space Marine Adventures - Rise of the Orks</i>, which allows the enemy units to move by program, so this is an obvious change that can be made, rather than having reinforcements reflect "movement" of sorts.</li></ul><div>The final point is that a good programmed opponent takes work. It is basically a game in and of itself. I think the more you write these programs, the easier the next one becomes.</div><p></p>Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-75689617686322948202021-01-19T15:12:00.001-07:002021-01-19T15:12:24.479-07:00Arcadia Quest's Solo Rules<p> One of the games that I have had for a long time is <a href="https://cmon.com" target="_blank">CMON</a>'s <i><a href="http://arcadiaquest.com/en/" target="_blank">Arcadia Quest</a></i> (<i>AQ</i>). AQ is an adventure board game with cool, chibi-style miniatures (i.e. big heads, smaller body, little hands and feet) playable by 2-4 players. Although it has "monster" enemies that are not played by a specific player, it is only semi-cooperative. Players compete against one another to be the first one to complete quests. When all quests are complete, the scenario is over, players upgrade their characters, and you move on to another scenario (another night). There are six scenarios played total in every campaign.</p>
<p><img src="http://arcadiaquest.com/img/AQ-3d-GameBox.png" style="-webkit-user-select: none; display: block; margin: auto; user-select: none;" /></p>
<p>There are more than six scenarios defined, so each campaign can consist of a different mix of scenarios. Beyond that, each player uses three characters throughout that campaign and there are numerous characters to choose from, so there is quite a bit of replayability. All that said, despite the dungeon crawling, campaign aspect of the game, this is more of a player-versus-player (PvP) than player-versus-environment (PvE) game, although components of both exist.</p><p>Given that it is more PvP than PvE, how can you play this game solo? If you can convert this to a solo game, why can't you convert it to a fully co-operative game then? Let's start by looking at the regular game mechanics, how CMON changed it for solo play, then look at a game.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">AQ Game Mechanics</h2><p>My goal here is not to review the entire rules, but to show how AQ works as a game, how the rules make decisions for the monsters, how combat works, and how a scenario is fought.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Combat</h3><p>The basic combat mechanic in AQ is that every character (hero or monster) has an attack stat indicating the number of attack (black) dice they will roll, and whether that attack is ranged or melee. In addition, heroes have a defense stat indicating the number of defense (white) dice they will roll. Each successful defense roll (block) cancels a successful attack roll (hit). If there are more hits than blocks, the defender takes wounds equal to the difference. This leads to the third stat characters have, health, which is the number of hits they take before they are removed from play.</p><p>The primary difference in combat against heroes and combat against monsters is that the former have defense dice while the latter do not. This simplifies combat in that no one has to "play" the monster when a hero attacks one. There are no decisions to be made (at that time), it is simply does the hero inflict enough wounds to kill the monster or not?</p><p>The secondary difference between heroes and monsters in combat is that when the former's wounds equals or exceeds its health the combat is over. The hero's figure is removed from the board and placed on their stat card. (More on that later). Monsters, however, have a unique stat: the overkill stat. This stat represents the number of wounds that, if taken in a single hit, has killed the monster so quickly and decisively that it cannot strike back before it is removed. Anything less and the monster will get to make a "payback reaction".</p>
<p>Monster reactions are the "programs" for the monsters that dictate when a monster can act. Normally, monsters do not get a "turn". They stand in place in the designated location (according to the scenario) and do nothing until their program allows them to react to a player action. One of those reactions is when they are attacked and the hero does not manage to overkill them. At that point they can move (according to their movement stat) and attack the hero that attacked them. Some monsters have ranged attacks while others have melee attacks. It is possible, for example, for a hero to attack a monster and the reacting monster cannot move enough to attack the attacker back.</p>
<p>Another reaction monsters have in their program is when a hero attempts to move within or out of their "zone of control". This prevents players from simply moving their heroes around the monsters with impunity. The rules for this "guard reaction" is that they immediately attack the hero each time they move within or out of their zone of control. They do not move, however.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C6zWCRehNd4/X-_WH2n9IAI/AAAAAAAAGtQ/CR5i8EukTLAFe9tvXFrKgXoa49cgWN7HACLcBGAsYHQ/s806/Close.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="806" data-original-width="612" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C6zWCRehNd4/X-_WH2n9IAI/AAAAAAAAGtQ/CR5i8EukTLAFe9tvXFrKgXoa49cgWN7HACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Close.png" /></a></div>
<p>In both reaction cases, the player to the right of the player that owns the hero the monster is reacting to will act using the reacting monster and roll its dice. (Remember that AQ is primarily a PvP game, so there is plenty of incentive for the other player to act aggressively with the monster.)</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Spawning</h3><p>Monsters are placed in squares initially as indicated by the scenario. The image below shows the configuration of the board, portals, tokens, player starting area, and locations of monsters and objectives. In addition, the marker indicated with the red rectangles are "spawn tokens".</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J3M_g_fYSO8/X-_XHYDOO9I/AAAAAAAAGtc/09uSk9_xIlcydpPvddusKVc-bbJg2tgxgCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/SpawnPoints.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1183" data-original-width="2048" height="370" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J3M_g_fYSO8/X-_XHYDOO9I/AAAAAAAAGtc/09uSk9_xIlcydpPvddusKVc-bbJg2tgxgCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h370/SpawnPoints.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<p>When a monster is killed it is moved off of the board onto the spawn track (the mini-board in the upper-left corner of the table with five slots). When all five slots are filled the monsters on that track will re-spawn into a random location on the board.</p><p>Each of the spawn tokens have two symbols printed on it. Two attack (black) dice are rolled for each figure on the spawn track, matching the symbols on the dice to the tokens. As there are three different symbols there are six unique combinations. As you can see in the image above, there are only four different combinations showing, so if a combination is rolled that is not on the board, that monster is permanently removed from the scenario, otherwise it is placed in the square with the corresponding token combination. (As there is a stacking limit to a square, if a combination is rolled and that square is already full, that monster is also permanently removed.)</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Turn Sequence</h3>
<p>As indicated above the basic turn sequence is as follows.</p>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>A single Hero activates for each player in turn. Alternately, a player can Rest his Guild (which is not discussed in this post).</li>
<ol>
<li>If the Hero triggers a reaction, that Monster reacts to the Hero and acts according to its program and how the player to the right wishes.</li>
</ol>
<li>Once all players have acted, if the Spawn Track is full, dice are rolled for each Monster on the track to see where it respawns, or if it is permanently removed.</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that the Monsters do not get a "turn", thus this is not a traditional IGO-UGO game. This will become significant when we look at the solo rules.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">AQ Solo Game Mechanics</h2>
<p>Again, the idea is not to fully review the solo rules, but to highlight how the core mechanics change when playing solo.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Combat Mechanics</h3>
<p>Combat mechanics do not change materially save for the Monster's movement stat. The stat remains the same – typically one square – but it is only used for payback reactions (reacting to being attacked by a Hero). As will be discussed in the Turn Sequence section, Monsters can move in their own separate turn and when they do, they will get to move <b>three</b> squares.</p><p>Because the intent is to use these rules by a single player, the mechanic of having the player to the right play the monsters when reacting will not work. The solo rules needed to tighten up their program on running the monsters. Because a reaction is always to a Hero and not to a player, nothing really needs to change. Either the monster can react to the moving/attacking player or it cannot. There are no real decisions to be made.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Spawn Mechanics</h3>
<p>The mechanics do not materially change for solo play. The spawn tokens and spawn track still exist and are used the same way.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Turn Sequence</h3>
<p>This is where the changes occur. The solo rules essentially have to change a PvP game to a PvE game. As before, no one "plays" the monster side, so the monsters need to be fully programmed.</p><p>The modified turn sequence is as follows.</p>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>The player activates all of his Heroes in any order he chooses, or Rests the Guild.</li>
<ol>
<li>If the Hero triggers a reaction, that Monster reacts to the Hero and acts according to its program and how the player to the right wishes.</li>
<li>If the player completes all of the quests the game instantly ends.</li>
</ol>
<li>If the Spawn Track is full, dice are rolled for each Monster on the track to see where it respawns, or if it is permanently removed.</li>
<li>The player will roll twice to determine which of the monsters on the board will get to move and attack.</li>
<ol>
<li>Players lose and the scenario instantly ends if the Heroes have been killed a number of times equal to the difficulty of the game (somewhere between one and four times).</li>
</ol>
<li>Once both Monsters have acted, the turn ends.</li>
</ol>
<p>With the Monsters taking an active role, and there being only one Guild (team) to counter them with, the scenarios are <u>much</u> harder than when playing normally.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Conclusion</h2><p>The goal of any A.I. or programmed opponent is to take the following four decisions away from the player and for the program to make them:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Which side gets to act next?</li><li>Which unit gets to act next?</li><li>Which actions will the acting unit take?</li><li>How will the unit execute those actions?</li></ol>
<p>Given that this follows a traditional IGO-UGO turn sequence, this question is easily answered: <i>the side that is current active will act next</i>.</p><p>The spawn mechanics partially answer the second question: <i>two dice are rolled to determine which spawn point to reference. Draw a Monster card. The closest Monster of the type indicated on the card to that spawn point will act next. If more than one meets that criteria, then it goes to the player choice</i>. The player can use a number of rules to break the tie, which is recommended.</p><p>The third question is partially answered with rules: <i>the Monster will move towards the closest Hero and then attack them if possible</i>. Essentially the Monster takes an Attack action with an optional Move action if needed to get them to where they can attack.</p><p>The fourth question is largely unanswered. Although there are rules governing how a Monster should choose a target Hero, in the case of ties it is silent on how to break the tie. Where most of the ambiguity comes in are in the execution details. For example, if a Monster can attack from more than one direction there are no rules governing deciding which path. Also, if a Monster has a ranged weapon, can it (or <i>should</i> it) advance to the closest point at which it can fire, or should it move its full move?</p><p>In short, the solo rules are something to build upon, rather than relying upon it to cover all bases. (It does not even have the generic rule to "roll a die to choose", relying upon the player to choose.)</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Testing</h2>
<p>The more this lockdown continues, the more opportunity we all have to try more solo gaming and their mechanics. Although you can always fall back on the old "play both sides to the best of your ability" method, this leaves many games feeling like a test of the game mechanics, rather than an exciting narrative playing out. In fact, if you get too invested in one side, the odds are your bias with come out in lackluster or even bad plays on the opposing side. That is why having a solid program really helps solo gameplay.</p><p>These rules are "challenging". There is no adjustment to the enemy roster and you are expected to not only defeat the same number of enemy that would face two to four times the number of player Heroes, but these enemy can move towards you at great speed. In the two test games I played, the player's party never got more than one square beyond the starting area!</p><p>Overall, however, I enjoyed them and would play them again, with a few tweaks.</p>Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-46474099880076128152020-11-05T16:49:00.002-07:002020-11-05T16:49:49.994-07:00Playing Undaunted: Normandy Solo using programmed rules<p>In my other blog I posted a <a href="http://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-first-look-at-undaunted-normandy.html" target="_blank">first look at the game <i>Undaunted: Normandy</i></a> (<i>UN</i>) while in the last post on this blog I talked about <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2020/02/initiative-bidding-in-undaunted-normandy.html" target="_blank">initiative bidding in <i>Undaunted: Normandy</i></a> Since those posts I have played <i>UN</i> a number of times (and hopefully will soon be playing it virtually face-to-face) - and tried to write this post several times. In the course of those solo playthroughs I have come across several solo <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/195393/solitaire-i" target="_blank">play</a> <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/204602/solo-rules-automa-undaunted-normandy-north-africa" target="_blank">systems</a> and <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/189414/initiative-mechanism-solo-play" target="_blank">mechanics</a> (Board Game Geek account required to download the files), but there was <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/206471/solo-ai-cards-v10-one-stop-co-op-shop" target="_blank">one from</a> "One Stop Co-Op Shop" that seemed pretty interesting and had a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHmt1Hj_0n4" target="_blank">YouTube video</a> showing how to use it.</p><p>Basically it is a single page of rules representing the program that the AI is supposed to run through in order to determine the programmed player's turn.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ra4P9fuRyBg/X6R5X_zVLzI/AAAAAAAAGoY/ldB8xBVcbMEMN78PNEOgWbMnB3PHNNb7QCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="486" height="400" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ra4P9fuRyBg/X6R5X_zVLzI/AAAAAAAAGoY/ldB8xBVcbMEMN78PNEOgWbMnB3PHNNb7QCLcBGAsYHQ/w291-h400/image.png" width="291" /></a></div><p></p><p>The first game I ran I used the program for the attackers (the U.S.) and it beat me. In all games of <i>UD</i> there is a certain amount of "luck of the draw", but this was honestly because I failed to keep my eye on the objective and when the AI had a chance to sneak in a win, it did.</p><p>Basically these are proper rules, telling the user which order to play cards in and what action to take when a card is played. There is very little gray area and several opportunities to inject a more "cautious" or "aggressive" personality into the rules.</p><p>Highly recommended.</p>Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-53664964019721699042020-02-22T14:15:00.000-07:002020-02-22T14:15:01.677-07:00Initiative Bidding in Undaunted Normandy<i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Undaunted-Normandy-David-Thompson/dp/1472834704/" target="_blank">Undaunted: Normandy</a></i> (<i>UN</i>) is a new card, counter, and tile game about combat during WWII in Normandy 1944. I purchased this recently and just played a game solo.<br />
<br />
<i>UN</i> has two game mechanics that make solo play generally harder. I wrote this blog post to discuss how I overcome these obstacles.<br />
<br />
The first obstacle is card hand management. Actually <i>UN</i> makes this almost a non-issue as you do not manage a hand of cards from turn-to-turn; each hand is played out each turn. You only manage the hand in terms of determining which of the four cards drawn will be used to bid for initiative, with the remainder being used for determining which of your units get to act.<br />
<br />
In general, I play one side of <i>UN</i> normally, while the other is semi-programmed. Ultimately what that means is that the side I play makes their hand management decision first. More on that in a second.<br />
<br />
The second obstacle is a blind bidding system for initiative. As shown in the image below. the number in the upper-left corner of each card is a number.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3f4rzbqm_R4/XlGV4ZLinFI/AAAAAAAAGR4/7oJcugdzm2M4Q0YeflLYxbFdHgVDBOMGwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/Cards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3f4rzbqm_R4/XlGV4ZLinFI/AAAAAAAAGR4/7oJcugdzm2M4Q0YeflLYxbFdHgVDBOMGwCK4BGAYYCw/s640/Cards.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
The player who bids using a higher numbered card wins initiative and plays first.<br />
<br />
So the questions are:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>How do I determine which card to play for the non-player side?</li>
<li>How do I keep the player from knowing the other cards in the hand of the non-player?</li>
</ul>
I solved this pretty readily by altering the Draw Phase of the turn sequence slightly:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The player side draws their four cards as normally done.</li>
<li>The player decides which of the four cards will be used for the initiative bid.</li>
<li>The player draws the top card of the non-player deck. That card will be used for the non-player initiative bid.</li>
<li>The higher card value wins the bid, as normal. However, if the values are tied the non-player <u>always</u> wins the tie.</li>
<li>The non-player's hand of three cards will be drawn face down. The hand will only be revealed when it is time to play the non-player's hand.</li>
</ol>
In general, this change will usually result in the non-player winning the bid more often than not. If the non-player acts first, you will be playing with the slight knowledge at what the player is capable of (if you remember the rest of the hand), again giving a slight advantage to the non-player. If, however, the non-player acts second, the player will play their hand with no knowledge of what the non-player is capable of.<br />
<br />
In general I find <i>UN</i> very solo-friendly, which is unusual for a game with hidden information mechanics. This is largely due to the card draws defining the limitations of what you can do and which specific units and act and which cannot, along with there being no hand management that carries over from turn-to-turn.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-48802918219333619072020-01-04T18:43:00.002-07:002020-01-04T18:43:42.111-07:00Using Card Activations Without Breaking IGO-UGO RulesAs I indicated in my last post, I do not like injecting game mechanics into rules for the sole purpose of creating randomness to simulate "surprise" as it can break some rules whose turn sequence and turn-to-turn sequence are finely tuned. That said, someone of the solo forum I read asked a better version of the questions normally asked. He asked "I want to play (IGO-UGO) rule set <i>X</i> solo. Do you have any tips or ideas to do that?"<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WaNguAv7_y4/XhE7A1o9DnI/AAAAAAAAGGY/Barrx62tFe8ZjnfrYiEfVV_fkKsNeQ69QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/BlackOpsCover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="361" data-original-width="268" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WaNguAv7_y4/XhE7A1o9DnI/AAAAAAAAGGY/Barrx62tFe8ZjnfrYiEfVV_fkKsNeQ69QCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/BlackOpsCover.jpg" width="296" /></a></div>
<br />
I bought a set of rules some time ago and, for whatever reason, I set them aside unplayed. (Probably because I rotated out of tabletop miniatures gaming at the time, but it could be that I was scoring a fix as I am a "rules junkie".) The rules were from Osprey Publishing and they are called <i>Black Ops</i>, by Guy Bowers, editor of <i>Wargames, Soldiers, and Strategy</i> magazine.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Ironically, the solo card set <i>Hostile: Tactical A. I.</i> (<i>HTAI</i>) was written specifically for playing the defenders in <i>Black Ops</i> scenarios, according to the author of <i>HTAI</i>. (I did a <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2018/12/hostile-tactical-ai-review-part-1.html" target="_blank">two</a> <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2018/12/hostile-tactical-ai-review-part-2.html" target="_blank">part</a> play through and a <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2018/12/hostile-tactical-ai-review-on-solo.html" target="_blank">review</a> of <i>HTAI</i> a few posts back. Recommended.)</i></blockquote>
<br />
Back to the subject, <i>Black Ops</i> uses card activations, red for one side, black for the other. Each side's leader is the Ace, Kings are the heavy weapons, Queens the specialists, and Jacks (all of) the soldiers. Now it totally randomizes the card draw – cards from both sides are placed in a single draw deck – so not only do you do not know which side will be activated next, you don't know which figure type. The rules <i><a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2016/11/test-battle-for-tin-soldiers-in-action.html" target="_blank">Tin Soldiers in Action</a></i> (<i>TSIA</i>) use this same sort of mechanism – a single draw deck composed of cards assigned to units which are drawn to determine activation order – so this is nothing new to me. However, if you modify the idea slightly – assign a card to a single unit and create a draw deck <u>only</u> for the non-player side, this does not break the rules in any way. You still keep the IGO-UGO sequence between players, but when it is time to play the non-player side, you can take the decision of which unit acts next out of the hands of the player. Let's run through an example.<br />
<br />
Let's say the non-player forces consist of the following units. Assign a card to each one.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Orc General: King of Spades</li>
<li>Orc Bodyguard: Jack of Spades</li>
<li>Orc Witch: Queen of Spades</li>
<li>Orc Spears: 10 of Spades</li>
<li>Orc Swords: 9 of Spades</li>
<li>Goblin Bows: 8 of Spades</li>
<li>Goblin Wolf Riders: 7 of Spades</li>
</ul>
Create a deck of these seven cards and when it is the Orc non-player's turn, use that draw to determine the next unit to act.<br />
<br />
If your rules are, say, broken down into Movement, Ranged Combat, and Melee Combat phases, and all units complete a phase before moving on to the next phase, then you would use the draw deck for each phase, determining unit order for action in that phase. When the phase is complete, reshuffle the deck and draw again for the next phase. So in this example, there would be three sets of draws, one for each of the three phases.<br />
<br />
If your rules are broken down into phases, as above, but a unit completes all phases before moving on to the next unit, you would simply only draw through the deck once a turn for the non-player's units.<br />
<br />
Sometime there are glitches simply following the order generated randomly, especially with moving. Random generation may not allow a group of units to act in concert, such as marching in column down a road. <i>Black Ops</i>, like many rules, provide a mechanic to deal with that. In <i>Black Ops</i> it is giving the "Reserve" order; other rules might call it "Hold", "Wait", "Standby", or similar. It is basically the order that says "I cannot make the move I want to make because another unit is blocking the way, because it has not moved yet. Once it moves, I will make my move."<br />
<br />
You can fix this glitch simply by placing a marker on the unit being ordered, and fixing in your mind the unit it is waiting for to move first. When that unit then moves, the waiting unit takes its move immediately after. This, in fact, may cause a cascade of units that were waiting to move, say if all of the units in a road column were selected to move before the head of the column is drawn.<br />
<br />
In summary, you can easily add the randomness of card activations to help the player decide the question "Which unit should act next?" without disrupting or materially altering the way the game designer intended the turn sequence to function. (See <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/surprise-activation-and-solo-wargamer.html" target="_blank">my last post</a> on the subject of decision making and activation order for more information.) This is a much less disruptive way that strapping on a Red/Black card activation model to replace IGO-UGO.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-65706437798809654742019-12-31T15:02:00.000-07:002019-12-31T15:02:21.317-07:00Surprise, Activation, and the Solo WargamerWhat is "solo gaming"? Well, clearly it is "playing a game by oneself", but it has to be more than that. To some people, however, it is not. Anyone who says "I just play both sides to the best of my ability" sees the definition of solo gaming as being just that and no more. Others believe that there has to be some "surprise" element added to the game because the player has "perfect knowledge". Even Stuart Asquith agrees with that idea, to a great extent.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>A frequent comment made regarding solo war gaming is "What's the point? The player controls both sides and thus always knows what the opposition is going to do and thus there is no element of surprise." A not unreasonable statement, so irrespective of the period in which the solo player intends to war game, or the manner in which the games are to be conducted, various solo play mechanisms and techniques will be needed so that the soloist can introduce a random element into the unfolding situation.</i><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<i>- Stuart Asquith, "The Partizan Press Guide to Solo Wargaming"</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div>
I am on a forum for solo wargaming and there are a stream of questions like "what rules should I to wargame solo?" or "how can I play rule set X solo?" The responses generally fall along these lines, like:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>"Rule set X uses a card activation method, so you are halfway there."</li>
<li>"You should choose rule set X because it uses cards to determine which side acts next. Solo rules should do that."</li>
<li>"You should first determine how the player side is going to deploy, then randomly determine how the opposing side should deploy its units."</li>
</ul>
Actually, those comments also come from authors of books and articles on solo wargaming so they are in good company. All that said, I think the comments miss the mark. Let me explain why.
</div>
<div>
<br />
<h2>
Surprise in Wargaming</h2>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let me ask you a question, and be honest now: how many times were you truly "surprised" in a wargame by your opponent's move <u>and</u> because it was a really good move? The last one I can think of - and it did not happen to me - was when <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/03/two-moves-alphago-lee-sedol-redefined-future/" target="_blank">AlphaGo made move 37 in game 2</a> against Lee Sedol. That move so astounded Go players around the world that the Go community was abuzz about how it came up with the move. Lee Sedol took a full 15 minutes to recover from the shock before he could make his next move. Have you ever had such a game? I have not; not even close.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I can remember all of the times I was "surprised" (and the move was good) and they were always when I was playing a new game and did not know all of the rules. It is a game that has a fairly straightforward core set of rules, but with too many "special abilities" that were constantly being added as new supplements came out for you to buy. Essentially, a unit made a move that was illegal, according to the core rules, but perfectly legal according to the special rule in the supplement that I had not yet purchased. You know that kind of game. There are plenty of them out there.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, there have been some moves where I was surprised that the player made them, but only because it was either a bad move or a risky one. On the latter, some worked and some didn't. I made a few of those "you're a hero if it works, zero if it doesn't" type moves myself. But at the end of the day, playing the game is about exploiting the missteps your opponent makes while minimizing your own. The last thing you want to do is introduce a random element to force you to misstep.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Does that mean I don't agree with adding in random chance elements into the game? Of course not. The thing is, the games already have them. Is adding another element really to facilitate solo play?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Card Activation</h3>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's take card activation as an example. Is adding card activation for units conducive to solo play?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First, there are three types of card activation mechanisms. The first use cards to determine which <i>side</i> activates next. When a red card is drawn, the red side acts with all of its units. A variation of that is that the card indicates that one unit on that side activates next. The last type of card activation - and one used infrequently - is assigning a card to a <i>specific</i> unit. When the card is drawn, that specific unit then acts.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's think about this in terms of decisions. Unless you are in the "play both sides" camp, what you are looking for in a solo system is a means for answering the questions every time a decision point comes up. So, what are some of the basic questions?</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Which side gets to act next?</li>
<li>Which unit gets to act next?</li>
<li>Which action(s) will the acting unit take?</li>
<li>How will the unit execute that action(s)?</li>
</ul>
If your system is not answering these questions then it is not helping you as much as it could. You, the player, are making decisions for the non-player that allows you to let your bias creep in.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Which Side Gets to Act Next?</h4>
<div>
<br />
As you can see in the table below, all activation methods, including the traditional IGO-UGO method, takes away the decision of "which side acts next" from the player.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<table border="1"><thead>
<tr><td><b>Activation Type</b></td><td><b>Result</b></td></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Card to determine side</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
<tr><td>Card to determine side that chooses a unit</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
<tr><td>Card to determine a unit</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
<tr><td>IGO-UGO</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<br />
<h4>
Which Unit Gets to Act Next?</h4>
<div>
<br />
Unless you are using a mechanism that assigns a unit (or sub-command) to a card, card activation does not answer the question of which unit you should act with next. If you provide no mechanism for making this decision, you leave it up to the player to make the choice.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<table border="1"><thead>
<tr><td><b>Activation Type</b></td><td><b>Result</b></td></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Card to determine side</td><td>No</td></tr>
<tr><td>Card to determine side that chooses a unit</td><td>No</td></tr>
<tr><td>Card to determine a unit</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
<tr><td>IGO-UGO</td><td>No</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Which Action Will the Unit Take?</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<table border="1"><thead>
<tr><td><b>Activation Type</b></td><td><b>Result</b></td></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Card to determine side</td><td>No</td></tr>
<tr><td>Card to determine side that chooses a unit</td><td>No</td></tr>
<tr><td>Card to determine a unit</td><td>No</td></tr>
<tr><td>IGO-UGO</td><td>No</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h4>
How Will the Unit Execute Its Action?</h4>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<table border="1"><thead>
<tr><td><b>Activation Type</b></td><td><b>Result</b></td></tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Card to determine side</td><td>No</td></tr>
<tr><td>Card to determine side that chooses a unit</td><td>No</td></tr>
<tr><td>Card to determine a unit</td><td>No</td></tr>
<tr><td>IGO-UGO</td><td>No</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
As you can see above, none of the activation methods answer the remaining two questions that pertain to the unit acting. That is because activation methods stop providing use once you get past the decision on which side or unit activates next. Put another way, card activation is not a solo gaming mechanic unless you use it for unit assignment. It answers no more questions than IGO-UGO does (again, with unit assignment by card as being the sole exception).<br />
<br />
What card activation does is create "surprise" to the player as to which side will get to do something. It is a command-and-control mechanic, not a solo mechanic. However, it has side effects that you need to consider.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Variable Activation</h3>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Whether variable activation - activation where the order of the side acting varies from turn to turn - comes into play the most is where each activation only allows a very granular action. For example, if a unit can only move <u>or</u> fire in a single activation then moving into the weapon range of the enemy becomes a significant decision. In IGO-UGO games when a unit moves into range the enemy is guaranteed the chance to fire first. Changing this to variable activation does not provide that guarantee any more. A unit could activate at the end of one turn, move into range, and then in the next turn draw first, allowing it to fire before the enemy can respond. It is actually these sort of "double activations" that players attempt to set up and exploit as they are so effective.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even if you are using rules that allows units to move <u>and</u> fire, variable activation can have an impact. You could move in and fire on one turn and then fire again on the next turn with a lucky draw.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, you might be thinking, what is wrong with that? Some games are rather delicately balanced regarding the volume of fire in relation to distance moved and the passage of time. Changing that affects the core balance that the rules author put into their rules.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The main point is that these sort of mechanics are attributed as being "solo friendly" and my point is that they have nothing to do with solo gaming. These are ways to add additional random chance elements into the game, often in the name of modeling "the fog of war", "chaos", or "friction". A player will either like such a mechanic or not, but do not attribute it to facilitating solo game play. If a mechanic does not take away a decision from the player when acting with a unit for the non-player side then it is not a "solo gaming" mechanic.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Injecting Chance into Non-Player Decision-Making</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another response I see in forums regarding "how to game solo" is to use random chance elements to answer the type of questions above. Donald Featherstone calls that 'instant' solo wargaming.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>But even the most volatile spontaneity can be dampened in the case of the solo-wargamer if he has to waste a large part of his precious few hours in so organizing the battle as to give him the enjoyable interplay of tactics that comes from dividing himself down the middle and being two generals at once. Briefly, this means that he requires some ready-made method of 'instant' solo-wargaming that enables him to set up armies and get on with the battle in a manner that allows for a realistic demonstration of both tactics and the fluctuations of the fortunes of war. He need not despair because, if his inventive mind has not already though up a system of his own, then there are a number of other methods that he can utilize or adapt to suit his own requirements.</i><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<i>- Donald Featherstone, "Donald Featherstone's Solo Wargaming"</i></div>
</blockquote>
I admit to using some of these mechanisms myself, on occasion, but for me the goal is that it is a fallback for when you want to game, but don't care as much about the quality of the result. That typically occurs when I am testing out a new set of rules. I tend to push the boundaries in such games to see if the rules allow "crazy" results and whether or not it punishes "bad" tactics. More often than not though I simply play both sides without regard to "being surprised". I tend to have less bias (or at least I like to think so) when I am simply testing than when I am gaming for fun.<br />
<br />
The simple fact is, a random die roll that includes a chance to select a sub-optimal option will always be, at best, on par with the decision that a thinking human would make, given all of the factors present. A far greater portion of the time it will produce an inferior decision. Multiply that over all the decisions that will have to be made and it is not hard to see why the more you inject random chance to make decisions for your non-player forces, the dumber and more erratic the opponent will be.</div>
Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-25969869467749212912019-12-11T12:20:00.001-07:002019-12-11T12:20:08.553-07:00Baron Babbage Beats MeIf you have been following along lately you know that I have been speculating about how to make programmed opponents work by starting with <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/playing-against-mr-babbage.html" target="_blank">a look at the solo mechanics</a> called <i>Playing Against Mr Babbage</i> which are included in the <i>The Men Who Would Be Kings</i> rules, making my own <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/playing-against-baron-babbage.html" target="_blank">programmed opponent Baron Babbage</a> for the Medieval variant of the rules <i>One-Hour Wargames </i>(<i>OHW</i>), making another <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/playing-against-warlord-babbage.html" target="_blank">programmed opponent Warlord Babbage</a> for the Dark Ages variant of the rules <i>One-Hour Wargames</i>, and finally <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/shawn-plays-against-warlord-babbage.html" target="_blank">Shawn's test of Warlord Babbage</a>. I finally took a breath and decided to try out my original Baron Babbage in order to see what refinements needed to be made. I suspected that there was a bad hole in my logic for units that were <u>not</u> the closest to a triggering condition, i.e. they had no orders whatsoever, and that there might be a lot of edge cases.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>
Let me start by saying that this will <u>not</u> be a typical battle report. My goal is not to report how the battle went, nor give a blow-by-blow, but to review the Red (programmed) turns specifically, state the decision that I took, and discuss what refinements need to be made.</i></blockquote>
<h2>
Scenario #8: Melee (<i>One-Hour Wargames</i>)</h2>
<h3>
Red (Defender): Programmed</h3>
<br />
Just as a reminder, here is what the scenario's terrain looks like.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GgNMwl5e2rA/XfBXxJ-GeII/AAAAAAAAF_0/8cRmKy2gAawE4Evcj2L_1DXRQ43jWhcXgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/Grid.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GgNMwl5e2rA/XfBXxJ-GeII/AAAAAAAAF_0/8cRmKy2gAawE4Evcj2L_1DXRQ43jWhcXgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/Grid.jpeg" width="626" /></a></div>
<br />
The scenario has two Red units on the hill at the start of the game. All other forces on both sides come in at various turns. There are six units in each army. The army composition is random for both sides. The scenario lasts 15 turns with Red taking the first turn.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Red Turn 1</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VFfnMAqjFvQ/XfBO8E7cMQI/AAAAAAAAF_Q/h4_d5M2fjocqVjH5tZIaNmNENAXtRAB0ACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B11.30.23.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="341" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VFfnMAqjFvQ/XfBO8E7cMQI/AAAAAAAAF_Q/h4_d5M2fjocqVjH5tZIaNmNENAXtRAB0ACK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B11.30.23.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I now believe this is a bad deployment as it anticipates Blue moving around the left flank. Better that it deploy in D4 and D5 facing South (the Blue baseline) and move on Red Turn 2, based on Blue's actual move.
<br />
<br />
Also, I realize that I did not think the deployment orders through. My order of preference in units to deploy here are Men-at-Arms then Knights. It is possible to have zero, one, or two Men-at-Arms units. What if you only had one? Should it deploy on the left or the right? (It should deploy on the right as the left is the position of maneuver and a Knight is more maneuverable.)
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Red Turn 2</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GLWQpjRfePA/XfBSe6RIG8I/AAAAAAAAF_c/y0OccpG_UFYLVnLHcczuaIHS7QMMBSJswCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B11.33.13.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="327" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GLWQpjRfePA/XfBSe6RIG8I/AAAAAAAAF_c/y0OccpG_UFYLVnLHcczuaIHS7QMMBSJswCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B11.33.13.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I brought on three Knight units as my move, using one to try and flank the hill from the East. The other two units will assault the hill frontally.
<br />
So, this is where the first rule refinement comes from.
<br />
Rule #1 says once you are on the hill, you stay on the hill. So that rule does not apply.
<br />
Rule #2 states that if there is an empty position on the hill, the closest unit to that position moves to occupy that position. It needs a qualifier that states that if you are already on the hill you may ignore the rule under some circumstances. Without the qualifier, a programmed unit would simply move back and forth between two empty positions on the hill. We do not want that.
<br />
That said, if a unit on a hill could make a move to block a Blue unit from gaining the hill, without risking its current position being take by a Blue unit, shouldn't it move to block? We will consider that rule later. For now we are just going to add the qualifier that if a unit is already on the hill it is not forced to obey Rule #2, nor will it count as the "closest unit".
<br />
<h4>
Red Turn 3</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EObKyyy4HgI/XfBU__8xBII/AAAAAAAAF_o/SUZZcEgeXXUQWY4b3dc4bRtE3ie7NnbEwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B11.39.29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="325" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EObKyyy4HgI/XfBU__8xBII/AAAAAAAAF_o/SUZZcEgeXXUQWY4b3dc4bRtE3ie7NnbEwCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B11.39.29.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
During Blue's turn the Knight unit flanking the hill could not yet make a charge from the road. (Charging only allows a 45º pivot at the beginning of the turn and it was adjudged that the unit would clip the woods, so it had to move farther down the road to charge.) Now that Red reinforcements are coming on that really looks like a bad move. Nonetheless, let's review Red's decisions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The two Red Knights on the hill have no decision to make. They are defending the hill, so they solemnly wait the charge from the Blue Knights.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first unit entering from the road is a Red Knight. It can ignore Rule #1 as it is not on the hill. Rule #2 states that, as the closest unit, it must move towards the (closest) empty position on the hill. As it stands, that is also the position that is threatened by the West-most Blue Knight, so that is a good move. Red Knight #3 moves to occupy D5.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The second unit entering from the road is a Red Archer unit. Rule #1 does not apply. Rule #2 has been applied to Red Knight #3 for square D5, but square D6 is also empty. Normally you would apply Rule #2 to another unit, but Archers are an exception. Rule #3 does not apply as Blue has not occupied the hill. This essentially leaves the Red Archer unit only with Rule #4, which says that it may not move move than 6" from the Red baseline. The rationale for this deployment was listed as: "Archers on the left flank will have more opportunity to engage in shooting as they will be away from the objective. Archers on the baseline have the potential to shoot enemy Knights attacking the left flank of the hill, or those sweeping around. If the enemy engage them, all the better, as that means they are not engaging the units on the objective." With that, it made sense that the order should have been to move 6" off of the baseline to threaten the Blue Knight preparing to charge the East end of the hill.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>I need a new rule that covers the condition when a Red Archer unit is not on the hill and does not have a Blue target on the hill.</i></blockquote>
<h4>
Red Turn 4</h4>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HORhM-v3OjE/XfBrn2MXpeI/AAAAAAAAGAA/VfUkKjWK-AMCYEZRPK6_CTF6r0H9g-tDACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B11.58.29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HORhM-v3OjE/XfBrn2MXpeI/AAAAAAAAGAA/VfUkKjWK-AMCYEZRPK6_CTF6r0H9g-tDACK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B11.58.29.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
As you can see from the image above, Blue has attacked on the East end of the hill and frontally. One of the Blue Knight units has gained the heights. Before I go on with discussing Red's moves, I ran into an interesting issue with the <i>OHW</i> rules.<br />
<br />
Notice the Red Archer unit on the bottom left. It is on the flank of the Blue Knight unit which is engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the Red Knight unit on the hill. Can the Red Archer unit fire into the Blue Knight unit? I know plenty of rules that would say 'no', or have a rule like one-half of the casualties are allocated to each side, but <i>OHW</i> is absolutely silent on the issue. Further, <i>OHW</i> is incredibly permissive, which lends me to believe a unit can shoot at an enemy unit in hand-to-hand combat. The one applicable rule I thought would apply was that a unit cannot be attacked on more than one face (in hand-to-hand combat) and that aligned nicely with, say, the rule in <i>Dux Bellorum</i> (which allows a missile unit to fire at a unit in close combat as long as the line of fire is completely clear of the enemy unit's base), so I felt I was on solid ground. What do you think?<br />
<br />
By the way, the red and yellow die are both there because I misinterpreted the flank attack rule. It applies only to hand-to-hand combat and not to shooting. I sort of rationalized to myself that it would get double hits for flank, but one-half hits for "cover" (being in melee), so I only registered 5 hits. In this case, it worked out...<br />
<br />
The Red Archer unit ignores Rules #1 and #2. Rule #3 would have applied if it were not for the Red Knight to the North of the hill being closer <u>and</u> the shot being blocked. So again, no applicable order applies to the Red Archer unit.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>This is probably a separate rule from the one indicated above, which would govern firing. Given that you can only move <u>or</u> fire, which new rule should have precedence?</i></blockquote>
The Red Knight unit to the North of the hill matches Rule #2 and #3. It occurs to me that I may need to switch the order of these – having the unit attack the Blue unit on the hill over first moving onto the hill itself – but I am not sure. I will leave that decision until next turn. As it stands, the move to obey either rule is the same. I also need to add a clause about not exposing your flank to the enemy at the end of your move. (Note that my Red Knight to the North maintained its facing. That was not in the program.<br />
<br />
One other note: for some reason I did not bring on Blue's reinforcements on turn 4, but rather turn 5. I did not even realize this until writing this report, in fact. That was a big mistake.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Red Turn 5</h4>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KTDvqt26_UA/XfBzVwbMgJI/AAAAAAAAGAM/ln0brt45SVgvmDvl6l1Rv9mMU7zMdq1ZACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B12.06.30.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="335" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KTDvqt26_UA/XfBzVwbMgJI/AAAAAAAAGAM/ln0brt45SVgvmDvl6l1Rv9mMU7zMdq1ZACK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B12.06.30.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This was an interesting turn, in terms of programming. I realized that the Red Knight unit had to obey Rule #2, so rather than attacking uphill against the Blue Knight it moved to the vacant hill position and faced to charge the following turn.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That move, in turn, triggers the option for Rule #3 to apply to the Red Archer unit. Now that the Blue Knight unit is exposed, the Red Archer unit shifted right in order to shoot in future turns.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The other two Red units, being engaged in hand-to-hand combat, can do nothing but continue to fight.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Red Turn 6</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zdeGA3qjhwg/XfB1mLjf3qI/AAAAAAAAGAY/DY69FvZwAgEMxBD17qwpcHBQayvLbxvVACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B12.13.30.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="355" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zdeGA3qjhwg/XfB1mLjf3qI/AAAAAAAAGAY/DY69FvZwAgEMxBD17qwpcHBQayvLbxvVACK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B12.13.30.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The last of the reinforcements enter the board. The Red Levy units enter from the West edge, North of the hill.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As the Knights on the hill are all in hand-to-hand combat, there are no decisions. That leaves the Red Archers and the two Red Levy to consider.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I began to feel that the angle was too sharp for the Red Archers to fire into the Blue Knights that it had shifted right to attack last turn. So, with rules 1 through 3 not in play, they fired at the Blue Knights at the East end of the hill. This was the first instance of where the program went in one direction one turn, then reversed back the next. Basically, I lost one turn of fire due to that 'indecision'. I can live with that result, but it is something to watch for in future games.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first Red Levy unit acts on Rule #3, which is to attack the Blue Knight unit on the hill. It thus moves towards a position from which it can charges its flank. The second Red Levy unit, however, has no applicable orders.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>What happens to a unit when there is no unoccupied hill position and other (closer) units are already engaging enemy units on the hill? I need an order to reinforce the weak link in the line.</i></blockquote>
The original two Red Knight units on the hill are pretty beat up, so the second Red Levy unit moves left in order to fill any gap that may appear on the East end of the hill.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Red Turn 7</h4>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-10UWpMTagcQ/XfD2VY7JZuI/AAAAAAAAGA0/pRM6Cg9x_oQnEOzEawmMj-I2VIl7V2uqwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B13.28.02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="345" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-10UWpMTagcQ/XfD2VY7JZuI/AAAAAAAAGA0/pRM6Cg9x_oQnEOzEawmMj-I2VIl7V2uqwCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B13.28.02.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Blue was able to shoot down the weakened Red Knight unit on the East end of the hill, so the second Red Levy unit continues to shift left, as Rule #2 now applies to it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first Red Levy unit charges into contact of the flank of the Blue Knight unit on the hill.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The unengaged Red Knight cannot move from the hill and because I indicated earlier that a unit on the hill does not need to move to another unoccupied position on the hill, it simply stays put.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, the Red Archer has no target and Rule #4 does not allow it to move farther off of the baseline. I allow it to do nothing, for now. But if it continues to stay out of the action, I may have to rethink its orders, especially as there is a possibility of having two such units.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Red Turn 8</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ygmBXRlbyvs/XfD5LMlXSII/AAAAAAAAGBA/vmLMqolM06YjpGovDOH_4TVpoaaYFkdXACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B13.37.47.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="373" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ygmBXRlbyvs/XfD5LMlXSII/AAAAAAAAGBA/vmLMqolM06YjpGovDOH_4TVpoaaYFkdXACK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B13.37.47.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The third Red Knight unit (that reinforced from the road) is gone, but the Red Levy was able to eliminate the Blue Knight unit they were both fighting before it was able to turn to flank. The Red Levy unit will gain the hill position.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The second Red Levy unit continues to shift left to occupy the East end of the hill. Once it gets there, however, I am not sure what it will do...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Red Archer unit shoots at the advancing Blue Archer unit.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>It may not have been a valid shot, considering that the Red Levy unit partially masks the line of sight. However, I generally go from unit center point-to-center point and that is not masked, so I allowed it. Would you have allowed the shot?</i></blockquote>
</div>
<h4>
Red Turn 9</h4>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xAhVLtir_p4/XfD8Q8liidI/AAAAAAAAGBM/31RAkee3kW8VQb96xDaPi-wCYumUXugLwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B13.56.12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="317" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xAhVLtir_p4/XfD8Q8liidI/AAAAAAAAGBM/31RAkee3kW8VQb96xDaPi-wCYumUXugLwCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B13.56.12.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The first Red Levy unit has another Blue Knight unit to its flank so that means that Rule #3 now comes into play. It will simply face 90º to the right as it cannot charge.<br />
<br />
The remaining Red Knight unit is nearly exhausted (as indicated by the arrow showing that it is four hits away from being destroyed).<br />
<br />
The Red Archer unit continues to fire at the Blue Archer unit and the Red Levy unit finally gains the position on the East end of the hill. Its flank is exposed to the Blue Archer unit, but as it cannot turn 90º and charge it is relatively safe.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Red Turn 10</h4>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_vBRJWtDp5k/XfE1WKd_3RI/AAAAAAAAGBk/JRsKBLsN-p0qMOcz7xi_hEl-76_TscFhwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B14.19.40.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="352" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_vBRJWtDp5k/XfE1WKd_3RI/AAAAAAAAGBk/JRsKBLsN-p0qMOcz7xi_hEl-76_TscFhwCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B14.19.40.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No unusual decisions. Red Archer fires. Red Levy holds firm.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Red Turn 11</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BYgIoAmAeis/XfE2GGMDw4I/AAAAAAAAGBw/km11qpVwc5kRhfwzGS8g3zZ3E26vCyGHQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B15.26.19.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="350" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BYgIoAmAeis/XfE2GGMDw4I/AAAAAAAAGBw/km11qpVwc5kRhfwzGS8g3zZ3E26vCyGHQCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B15.26.19.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Blue Archer unit gets cut down by the Red Archer fire, relieving the last of the threats on the East flank. The Red Levy unit no longer needs to concern itself. Next turn we will look at how its orders should change, along with the Red Archer unit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Note that the single, remaining Red Knight unit is still hanging on by a thread, with Blue having rolled terribly all of these turns.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Red Turn 12</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2RF3yMJqGFE/XfE3dCL5iMI/AAAAAAAAGB8/DEgvgXL0pDgkdkFRNN-DhJi8mL0RhfomgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B15.33.01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="337" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2RF3yMJqGFE/XfE3dCL5iMI/AAAAAAAAGB8/DEgvgXL0pDgkdkFRNN-DhJi8mL0RhfomgCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B15.33.01.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Amazingly, Red Knight continues to hold on. One more hit and it collapses. This causes me to think about 'threats'. Red Levy cannot contribute to the melee between Red Knight and Blue Men-at-Arms because: a) it cannot come off of the hill (Rule #1); and b) it cannot move through the woods. If Red Levy were to stay facing South and the next turn Red Knight were to collapse, Blue Men-at-Arms would gain the hill (take the defeated Red Knight's position) and Red Levy would not be poised to charge as it could not turn 90º and charge.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>I posit that there needs to be an order to allow a unit to change face on the hill which threatened from one side, but not threatened from the other. But I am not sure how to write the rule.</i></blockquote>
Red Levy faces right in anticipation that Red Knight will collapse next turn.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Red Archer, meeting the conditions of Rule #3, slides to the right to shoot into the flank of Blue Knight on the hill.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Red Turn 13</h4>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UsgFuPvd8hs/XfE5rbWQT6I/AAAAAAAAGCI/FBR5J2g9V5cXxpNtbS3IpU6JJep3dkyQACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B15.48.05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="356" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UsgFuPvd8hs/XfE5rbWQT6I/AAAAAAAAGCI/FBR5J2g9V5cXxpNtbS3IpU6JJep3dkyQACK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B15.48.05.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As expected, Red Knight is eliminated and Blue Men-at-Arms advances to take its position. This triggers Rule #3 for Red Levy, who charges into the flank of the Blue Men-at-Arms. Clearly they were reluctant to do so as they rolled a '2'!<br />
<br />
Red Archer finds the Blue Knights closer and shoots into their flank due to Rule #3.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Red Turn 14</h4>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qcZFc-5FIk0/XfE6v_roF9I/AAAAAAAAGCU/YO_O4Yo89ocZXpnnD434J9AtTFOGCltcQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B15.50.49.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="342" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qcZFc-5FIk0/XfE6v_roF9I/AAAAAAAAGCU/YO_O4Yo89ocZXpnnD434J9AtTFOGCltcQCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B15.50.49.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Red Levy finally get their courage up and roll a hefty '6' on the die (which only counts as three hits, despite what the die shows), enough to vanquish the Blue Men-at-Arms (who had been badly mauled by the Red Knights Who Would Not Die).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Red Archers continue to plink away at the Blue Knights. Don't ask me why the Blue Knights are facing down the hill; they should be facing the Red Levy. Don't ask me why the die says two hits, when the minimum is three. This picture clearly was messed up.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Red Turn 15</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jE2HMX_TVrU/XfE8DwmkcaI/AAAAAAAAGCg/DlcjXnTfE60PhAm7tTlMI2CWz_kzfk20wCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-12-09%2B15.55.13.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jE2HMX_TVrU/XfE8DwmkcaI/AAAAAAAAGCg/DlcjXnTfE60PhAm7tTlMI2CWz_kzfk20wCK4BGAYYCw/s400/2019-12-09%2B15.55.13.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The end. The Red Levy and Red Archers pound the Blue Knights, inflicting a total of ten hits in a single round. (Ouch!) Baron Babbage clears the hill, leaving Red the victor.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2>
Decision Review</h2>
<div>
So, here are the following additions that need to be made to the program:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>When a unit is already on the hill, it is not required to obey Rule #2. This stops a unit from shifting back and forth between unoccupied positions.</li>
<li>When a unit is already on the hill, it may obey Rule #2 if:</li>
<ol>
<li>The direction it is turning towards either allows it to attack an enemy unit on the hill, or allows it to block an enemy unit from getting on the hill.</li>
<li>The direction it is turning away from contains no possible threat to gaining a position on the hill.</li>
</ol>
<li>When an Archer unit does not have a Blue target on the hill to shoot at (or move towards), it has no order.</li>
<li>When a non-Archer unit does not have an open hill position to move to (Rule #2) and no Blue unit on a hill position (or it cannot reach it), it has no order.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
All in all I am very satisfied with the orders as is, and with these additions I think I am happy with it representing a cautious defender.</div>
Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-61126169648639038702019-12-08T21:04:00.002-07:002019-12-08T21:04:49.188-07:00Shawn Plays Against Warlord BabbageOne of the reasons I wrote <i><a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/playing-against-warlord-babbage.html" target="_blank">Playing Against Warlord Babbage</a></i> pretty quickly after <i><a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/playing-against-baron-babbage.html" target="_blank">Playing Against Baron Babbage</a></i>, without a test between, is because local gaming buddy Shawn wanted to try out the idea, but with his Dark Ages forces. He just finished up his game and sent me his notes, which have been really helpful.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Feedback</h3>
<br />
Let me start by saying that I do see some holes in the program I wrote already. I view this as a process that will be refined over time. That is why I want to work on a template for how to write these programs up and include some boilerplate rules. But, let me start with Shawn's comments.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Issue: Adaptation. The programmed opponent did not account for army composition adaptation or personal perspective. I initially wanted to use an Early Saxon army for Warlord Babbage with the Warband substitution for Infantry and no Cavalry. [This is an example of the type of adaptation Neil Thomas refers to in his rules.] The programmed opponent was perfectly suited to the rules as written, however, so any issue here was in my not discussing this issue before asking for the Dark Ages opponent. As we discussed, it was simple to just switch Red and Blue. Might be something to account for in a fully developed programmed opponent (probably more of a tie-in to historical flavor)?</i></blockquote>
<br />
Although I do account for varying composition, as allowed by the standard rules, the programmed opponent still depended upon the predominant unit type being Infantry. Simply using a force composed of Warbands and Skirmishers would probably have resulted in a disaster for that program. But who knows until you try it out? My point is that the more adaptable your program is to such a critical component – force composition – either the program will become very complex and conditional – i.e. a bunch of IF-THEN-ELSE statements – or very generic.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Issue: Rule #1. This rule states “Once a unit is on the hill, it may not move off.” From my understanding of this rule, I had several instances where a Red unit on the hill couldn’t move to flank a Blue unit attacking up the hill, so they remained in place.</i></blockquote>
<br />
So, after discussing this issue with Shawn there were several factors that led to this belief. I had put a statement in my <b>Rationale</b> section that did not appear in my rules: "The unit in D4 must be prepared to shift to the left flank of the hill (D3) if Blue attempts to flank the hill." At the end of Blue's turn 1, the situation was the following:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YCM_TLUGVnw/Xe2NyJHWbZI/AAAAAAAAF80/Ao2i-FeRZSIWY2l4D19IyseFKLQJ_pBZwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/02-Blue01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="478" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YCM_TLUGVnw/Xe2NyJHWbZI/AAAAAAAAF80/Ao2i-FeRZSIWY2l4D19IyseFKLQJ_pBZwCK4BGAYYCw/s640/02-Blue01.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
You can see that Red's units did not move on turn 1 (no reason to) and that Blue's move took one Warband down the road, flanking the hill's East end, while the other Warband threatened the hill frontally. This is exactly the move the Cautious Red Warlord should expect. The counter is the following.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mGEJaNiDKhs/Xe2QOAMbqnI/AAAAAAAAF9A/tOFQhBY_pkQzIwh8auD-KovyFyqDW5yCgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/02-Blue01-alt.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="478" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mGEJaNiDKhs/Xe2QOAMbqnI/AAAAAAAAF9A/tOFQhBY_pkQzIwh8auD-KovyFyqDW5yCgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/02-Blue01-alt.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The rightmost Red unit turns to face East and moves to the East end of the hill to block the Warband from gaining the height. This is a situation "in between" Rule #2 and Rule #3.<br />
<br />
Rule #2 states: "If there is an empty position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to occupy that position."<br />
<br />
Rule #3 states: "If there is a Blue Army unit occupying a position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to melee that unit. The closest Skirmisher unit must move to a position where they shoot at the Blue Army unit."<br />
<br />
The situation is not really covered by either rule. Rule #2 needs to be refined to say that it does <u>not</u> apply if already on the hill. (If you didn't, then a unit on the hill would be moving back and forth each turn as it would move to an empty location on one turn and then move back on the following turn.) Rule #3 does not apply because Blue is not on the hill; it is poised to gain the hill in its next move. So there needs to be a new rule:<br />
<ul>
<li>If there is a Blue Army unit that can occupy a position on the hill in its next move the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to block that unit's move. The closest Skirmisher unit must move to a position where they shoot at the Blue Army unit.</li>
</ul>
<br />
What this rule does is create the moves indicated above. The rightmost Red unit moves East, blocking the flanking Blue unit's advance up the hill. That in turn exposes a position where the Blue unit attacking frontally could gain the hill. So the leftmost Red unit must also slide to the East (but still facing the unit down the hill) to block that move.<br />
<br />
This brought up an interesting discussion between Shawn and I as it pointed out another reason why generic programmed opponents have a difficult time working. In order for this program to work the rules had to support such a maneuver. The first Red unit has to be able to face 90º and then move 6" along the hill in order to block the Blue flanking unit. The second Red unit has to "sidestep" – be able to move horizontally without changing face, or be able to pivot 90º, move, and then pivot 90º again – in order to execute the program. <i>One-Hours Wargames</i> is that flexible, but many other rules are not.<br />
<br />
Even though this program is specifically for <i>OHW</i> it did get me thinking: why those particular starting positions? Why is the easternmost unit not already deployed to D3? Food for thought.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Issue: Rule #3. This rule states “If there is a Blue Army unit occupying a position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to melee that unit. The closest Skirmisher unit must move to a position where they shoot at the Blue Army unit.” </i><i>This caused the Red Cavalry unit [entering via the road] to ignore a Blue Skirmisher unit right in front of it and expose its flank in order to move to the hill. Ultimately this Red Cavalry unit was eliminated by skirmisher fire (but not until after the Red Cavalry unit had charged the rear of a Blue Warband unit and destroyed it). I’m not sure this is actually an issue as the hill is the objective. I just wanted to point out that this type of situation occurs.</i></blockquote>
And it is a good point. This is where I am excited to have someone like Shawn write a different version of the Red Warlord. It sounds like his program might not take that risk of a valuable unit (Cavalry), exchanging it for an enemy Warband. His program might take into account the number of turns remaining and compare it against the average time for the Cavalry to deal with the enemy Skirmisher unit, say "If the turn is less than 8, you can ignore this rule in favor of another rule that could determine your action." Another equally valid method would be to write a rule with higher precedence. This would allow you to put your more specific cases at the top and your more general orders farther down.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Issue: Rule #3. See above for this rule's text, however it is referring to the second clause, which is regarding what a Skirmisher unit should do. </i><i>No issues here, I just missed this operating rule when I played the game. I ended up largely forgetting about the Red Skirmisher unit until the Cavalry cleared the line of sight. Probably a wash as moving to have line of sight would have prevented shooting that turn.</i></blockquote>
The other big "hole" in the program is when <u>none</u> of the rules apply to your units. What do you do then? Rule #4 ensures that the Skirmisher unit stays within 6" of the Red baseline, but doesn't tell you any other priorities. Same if two Cavalry units come on the road (the closest is to make for the closest gap on the hill, but what does the farthest Cavalry unit do), and so on. That has to be addressed.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Issue: Historical Flavor. </i><i>As an option I would recommend adjusting the programmed opponents to reflect increased historical flavor, i.e. using “Mount Badon” instead of “hill,” adjust for certain army types, etc. Not necessary, just my personal preference.</i></blockquote>
Interesting, as I had not considered that. I view the <i>OHW</i> variant as responsible for providing the proper historical flavor. But if there were a way to add historical flavor to the programmed opponent, I would surely do that. As for the scenario, I view <i>OHW</i>'s scenarios as generic, although the author clearly gives a nod to historical battles some have been modeled after. If I were writing a programmed opponent for a specific historical battle I agree it would surely make sense to do so.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Issue: Overall Enjoyment. </i><i>I very much enjoyed using the programmed opponent and I think it made me focus more on the objectives for both sides than if I had just played without the program. I think the game came in right around one hour. The only downside for me was trying to take notes throughout the battle (I was hand-writing the notes, so it was somewhat painful). The note-taking for feedback also reduced my mental imagery of warbands clashing against shield walls and charging cavalry, etc., but this has nothing to do with the program itself.</i></blockquote>
Given that the result was a draw, it sounds like it can provide a decent challenge. But I am getting ahead of myself.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Battle Report – Shawn Versus Red Warlord Babbage</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Again, this is scenario #8 (Melee) from <i>One-Hour Wargames</i>, playing the Dark Ages variant. The Red forces are the programmed opponent. Shawn has decided to play the Early Saxons, so Infantry and Cavalry units are exchanged for Warband units.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_jT67ovJGQ8/Xe3CJzMdVnI/AAAAAAAAF9M/p7Op1pnuwvwVY7-kLphGXmwpc3anHuN1gCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/01-Red01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="478" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_jT67ovJGQ8/Xe3CJzMdVnI/AAAAAAAAF9M/p7Op1pnuwvwVY7-kLphGXmwpc3anHuN1gCK4BGAYYCw/s640/01-Red01.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Arthurian British infantry occupy Mount Badon.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KSiuzObObMo/Xe3CZmFZ_5I/AAAAAAAAF9U/bL2Xsyh6GvA6TbKFsSMtLE3QyAnzQa3GQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/02-Blue01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="478" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KSiuzObObMo/Xe3CZmFZ_5I/AAAAAAAAF9U/bL2Xsyh6GvA6TbKFsSMtLE3QyAnzQa3GQCK4BGAYYCw/s640/02-Blue01.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Early Saxon warbands move to attack Mount Badon.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nmuGxSSgXXU/Xe3Co99gOmI/AAAAAAAAF9g/uBNNEGbrOlgfOFNOfw-BXV-HQ79MpV2tgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/03-Red02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nmuGxSSgXXU/Xe3Co99gOmI/AAAAAAAAF9g/uBNNEGbrOlgfOFNOfw-BXV-HQ79MpV2tgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/03-Red02.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Saxong assault on Mount Badon begins a British reinforcement arrive.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kujSdUMyzuI/Xe3C_E3IExI/AAAAAAAAF9w/eSL_eS0n71wM83pzNkyzkGRzHMivzWTFwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/04-Blue02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kujSdUMyzuI/Xe3C_E3IExI/AAAAAAAAF9w/eSL_eS0n71wM83pzNkyzkGRzHMivzWTFwCK4BGAYYCw/s640/04-Blue02.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A Saxon warband flanks the British position on Mount Badon and blocks the cavalry movement.<br />Saxon reinforcements arrive from the road to the South.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tQaw-cAGevw/Xe3DgDqgCFI/AAAAAAAAF98/x0ZTuIMT6AgjnbgyAOHt2yXMfDeAKAXKwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/05-Red03.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tQaw-cAGevw/Xe3DgDqgCFI/AAAAAAAAF98/x0ZTuIMT6AgjnbgyAOHt2yXMfDeAKAXKwCK4BGAYYCw/s640/05-Red03.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A unit of British infantry is eliminated on Mount Badon, but King Arthur and reinforcements are on the way.<br />The British cavalry on the east flank rout a Saxon warband.<br />Saxon reinforcements move around the woods to support the assault on Mount Badon.<br />Saxon skirmishers block the road and take up position in the woods.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t3nXxEIyZ_E/Xe3EMTMZ91I/AAAAAAAAF-I/xiAyRoA4g80fjs2Uv0oUhkjj37Uj6OUVgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/06-Red03.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t3nXxEIyZ_E/Xe3EMTMZ91I/AAAAAAAAF-I/xiAyRoA4g80fjs2Uv0oUhkjj37Uj6OUVgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/06-Red03.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The British cavalry on the east flank move to counterattack the Saxons.<br />Fighting breaks out all along Mount Badon.<br />Rival skirmishers along the road hurl javelins and bow fire at one another.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6qOXUs07OoM/Xe3EppmheoI/AAAAAAAAF-U/3sqZ0RvBG-Y0iUq8oJAwFhcnG-tXNml3gCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/07-Blue03.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6qOXUs07OoM/Xe3EppmheoI/AAAAAAAAF-U/3sqZ0RvBG-Y0iUq8oJAwFhcnG-tXNml3gCK4BGAYYCw/s640/07-Blue03.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The British cavalry on the east flank are destroyed by the combined effects of the melee and follow-on skirmish fire, <br />but not before destroying another Saxon warband.<br />King Arthur and his Knights move to flank the Saxon hold on Mount Badon.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ezYxic4Wst0/Xe3FG0YbyEI/AAAAAAAAF-g/m6yPl5GpdIQtOSFK0HntGfyQrDqQM-SIwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/08-Red04.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ezYxic4Wst0/Xe3FG0YbyEI/AAAAAAAAF-g/m6yPl5GpdIQtOSFK0HntGfyQrDqQM-SIwCK4BGAYYCw/s640/08-Red04.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Another Saxon warband is destroyed on Mount Badon.<br />This is followed soon after by a devastating flank attack against the remaining British infantry unit.<br />King Arthur sweeps across Mount Badon, crashing into and destroying another warband.<br />The British skirmishers along the road disperse their counterparts with effective bow fire.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-trRfLhBzU8U/Xe3F0tIhq-I/AAAAAAAAF-s/2b5HCZcsQp0xn7G6XgOqns58MBCwAJRNgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/09-Blue04.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-trRfLhBzU8U/Xe3F0tIhq-I/AAAAAAAAF-s/2b5HCZcsQp0xn7G6XgOqns58MBCwAJRNgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/09-Blue04.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The remaining Saxon skirmisher unit pivots to meet Arthur's charge;<br />both sides survive a round of melee as the battle ends in a draw.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Summary</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I knew the system would need some refinement and expansion, but I am pleasantly surprised that it stood up as well as it did on the first test by someone else. I look forward to anyone else giving it a try and providing feedback.</div>
Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-69765698795644613992019-12-05T22:31:00.003-07:002019-12-05T22:31:57.935-07:00Playing Against Warlord BabbagePart of my series of posts about <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/playing-against-mr-babbage.html" target="_blank">programmed opponents</a>, inspired by the <i>Playing Against Mr Babbage</i> rules in <i>The Men Who Would Be Kings</i>, I received a request for a variation of the programmed opponent I posted <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/playing-against-baron-babbage.html" target="_blank">for a Medieval scenario</a>. Basically it is for the Dark Ages rules in <i>One-Hour Wargames</i> rather than the Medieval rules, but the same scenario and for the Red Army (Defender).<br />
<h2>
Comparing the Dark Ages and Medieval Rules</h2>
<div>
The table below outlines the first change we must consider: force composition.</div>
<br />
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr><td colspan="3"><b>'Equivalent' Forces</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Dark Ages</b></td><td><b>Medieval</b></td><td><b>Differences</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>3-4 Infantry</td><td>3-4 Knights</td><td>Dark Ages combat inflicts fewer hits per turn, takes longer to get into battle.</td></tr>
<tr><td>0-2 Warband</td><td>0-2 Archers</td><td>Warband are slow Knights and more brittle than Men-at-Arms.</td></tr>
<tr><td>0-2 Skirmishers</td><td>0-2 Levies</td><td>Skirmishers are worse at shooting than Archers, but can move through Woods.</td></tr>
<tr><td>0-2 Cavalry</td><td>0-2 Men-at-Arms</td><td>You stand a good chance at getting no Cavalry in your force. They are mediocre, but at least move 12".</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br />
In the Medieval force, we could rely upon getting at least three Knight units. This allowed the Red Baron to allocate two of those units to come on as reinforcements on turn 3, standing a reasonable chance to reach the hill before the enemy can fully occupy the empty positions. With a Dark Ages army, the odds are only 16% that you will get two units, while being 33% likely you will get none. The Dark Ages army is <i><u>slow</u></i>.<br />
<br />
The other key takeaway is that the Knights hit hard (+2 in combat) while taking full casualties whereas the Infantry hit normally (+0) and take 1/2 casualties. In terms of combat momentum, Knights will inflict 5.5 hits per turn on average, grinding another Knight unit down in three turns, while an Infantry unit will inflict 2 hits per turn on average, taking a full eight turns to destroy the enemy Infantry unit. This dynamic translates to giving the defender more time to hold off the enemy (if the Infantry are on the Hill), but also means it will be hard to push off a Blue Infantry if they get on it.<br />
<h2>
Program for Medieval Red Army, Scenario #8, One-Hour Wargames Rules</h2>
The first decision to be made by the Red Warlord is deployment.<br />
<br />
All instructions will use the following grid reference system.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2Zu3tv_TqCg/XenhuFu4vkI/AAAAAAAAF8A/Wd6NnC0ox2Q7FpnZ_dXwYPXL2HMY3o2fgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/Grid.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2Zu3tv_TqCg/XenhuFu4vkI/AAAAAAAAF8A/Wd6NnC0ox2Q7FpnZ_dXwYPXL2HMY3o2fgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/Grid.jpeg" width="626" /></a></div>
<br />
Please note that I regulate measurements and unit placement using a square grid. The dots shown on the board indicate the grid I use. The grid size is the width of one unit's frontage. More than one foot unit can fit in a square, but one is in front and one in back. Both units must either face the same direction or be back-to-back. Contact (hand-to-hand combat) is defined as being in the same square, so units must have the necessary movement to enter the enemy's square in order to be considered in contact.<br />
<h3>
Hill Deployment</h3>
<h4>
Force Selection</h4>
The Red Warlord will always select two Infantry units to deploy on the hill.<br />
<h4>
Force Placement</h4>
One unit will be placed at D4 and the other at D5, both facing to the South.<br />
<h4>
Rationale</h4>
The hill forces need to hold as long as possible until reinforcements arrive. Infantry take one-half casualties due to their shieldwall and one-half casualties if they are uphill, so they stand the best chance of survival.<br />
<br />
Cavalry are the fastest moving unit, so they are the best choice (in this Warlord's opinion) to enter via the road on turn 3, if you have them. They would then make straight for the hill in order to fill any empty positions, or dislodge any enemy that might have gained a hill position.<br />
<br />
The unit in D4 must be prepared to shift to the left flank of the hill (D3) if Blue attempts to flank the hill. It will have its right flank protected by the woods from melee and shooting other than from Skirmishers. If Blue does have Skirmishers, you will just have to bear the risk of flank attacks.<br />
<h3>
Road Deployment</h3>
<h4>
Force Selection</h4>
Choose two units from the Red Army forces using the following order of preference: Cavalry, Skirmishers, Infantry, and Warband.<br />
<h4>
Force Placement</h4>
If available, move first with: Cavalry, Warband, Infantry, then Skirmishers.<br />
<h4>
Rationale</h4>
As you have more distance to cover to reach the hill, your fastest units should be deployed on the road.<br />
<br />
Cavalry are at the fore so they are not delayed in reaching the hill by slower units.<br />
<br />
Skirmishers on the left flank will have more opportunity to engage in shooting as they will be away from the objective. Skirmishers on the baseline have the potential to shoot enemy attacking the left flank of the hill, or those sweeping around. If the enemy engage them, all the better, as that means they are not engaging the units on the objective.<br />
<h3>
Right Flank Deployment</h3>
The two remaining units will be deployed here.<br />
<h3>
Operating Rules</h3>
These guide your decisions on moving and fighting with Red Army units.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Once a unit is on the hill, it may not move off. That is the objective. (Because I am using a square grid that means that units cannot charge off of the hill into units at the base of the hill.)</li>
<li>If there is an empty position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to occupy that position.</li>
<li>If there is a Blue Army unit occupying a position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to melee that unit. The closest Skirmisher unit must move to a position where they shoot at the Blue Army unit.</li>
<li>Skirmishers may not move off of the South row of squares/more than 6" from the South edge.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<h3>
Notes</h3>
<div>
Neil Thomas allows for some variation in the force selection. For example he mentions swapping Infantry for Warband to represent Viking invaders, or swapping Infantry for Cavalry for Frankish armies. King Arthur might see Cavalry get +2 (making them Medieval Knights in quality, but not force selection), and so on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What you do with the Blue Army is up to you. It is assumed that for this programmed opponent you are using the Dark Ages force selection and unit statistics as written. If you vary from that you may have to modify the program to reflect your changes.</div>
<h2>
Summary</h2>
</div>
<div>
This should be an interesting variation from the Medieval battle. It is unlikely you will go to 15 turns in the Medieval variant, but I can definitely see the Dark Ages version going the distance. This will be a slow and steady slog, with force selection luck playing much more of a role than</div>
Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-54976726425428685772019-12-05T07:58:00.001-07:002019-12-05T07:58:12.290-07:00Playing Against Baron BabbageIn my <a href="https://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2019/12/playing-against-mr-babbage.html" target="_blank">last blog post</a> I talked about my dream of trading programmed opponents with other solo gamers as a means of varying your gameplay. If a player could embed their 'gaming DNA' into the program, other players could experience that difference. For example, if I tend to play more cautiously and can reflect that caution in a program, and you (the reader) tend towards aggressive play, the idea is that you using my program to drive your opponent may well result in a different gaming experience from your typical "play both sides to the best of your ability" game.<br />
<br />
What I have learned over the years, however, is that a generic programmed opponent is a fantasy, at least without a computer running the program. I have thought about that too, as there are plenty of examples out there, but that means I could only trade programmed opponents with other computer programmers. (Talk about a niche within a niche, that would be gamers who frequently game solo and write computer programs.) No, the solution is to scope down the number of decisions and possible answers to a manageable size.<br />
<h2>
Scenarios from One-Hour Wargames</h2>
<div>
On my other blog <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2019/11/gameboard-for-one-hour-wargames.html" target="_blank">I showed a gameboard</a> that I created for a single scenario in the book <i>One-Hour Wargames</i>. Creating gameboards for scenarios makes it easy to be consistent in terrain placement and makes setup and teardown go faster. In the past I was skeptical about making them, as I figured I would tire of playing the same scenario more than two or three times, but that has not proven true. You can easily create one scenario for each side of the board and they stack neatly, as long as you do not make the terrain permanently three-dimensional. I have quite a collection stacked on end behind a door.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first way to set boundaries on your programmed opponent is to write it for a specific scenario. This is not a new or unique idea; it is exactly Charles Stewart Grant advocated in his book <i>Programmed Wargames Scenarios</i>. But, if you leave it at the scenario level, there are still very broad variations that you have to consider and account for. Mr. Grant decided that if he got into much more detail into what the programmed opponent would do, he would only have a single scenario writeup, so he kept his programming very generic and high level.<br />
<br />
For this experiment I am choosing to write a programmed opponent for scenario #8 (Melee) from <i>One-Hour Wargames</i>. Specifically, I am writing it for the Red Army (Defender) forces.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q22lEEnxSQE/Xejw_8LEctI/AAAAAAAAF7o/77Y-G2J4q0ojB1MemkqekTsOZ-mAOlAvACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/2019-11-24%2B11.14.33-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q22lEEnxSQE/Xejw_8LEctI/AAAAAAAAF7o/77Y-G2J4q0ojB1MemkqekTsOZ-mAOlAvACK4BGAYYCw/s640/2019-11-24%2B11.14.33-1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<h2>
Rules from One-Hour Wargames</h2>
<div>
I went down this path before – scoping the program to a game system (<i>Saga</i> in one case and <i>Rally Around the King</i> in another) – and generally speaking, it works. <i>Playing Against Mr Babbage</i> is scoped to the game mechanics of <i>The Men Who Would Be Kings</i> after all.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For my first experiment I decided to use <i>One-Hour Wargames</i> because the rules are very simple. This simplicity makes for little to no nuance in the game mechanics and places it all in the player's tactics. For example, it is an <i>act with any or all </i>system, so you don't have to worry about deciding which units get to act and generally you do not need to decide the order that units act as units are destroyed through slow attrition rather than quickly from a single lucky roll.<br />
<br />
For this experiment I am choosing the <i>One-Hour Wargames</i> rules for my programmed opponent.<br />
<h2>
Genre from One-Hour Wargames</h2>
</div>
Another aspect of <i>One-Hour Wargames</i> is that its scenarios can be (and are expected to be) played across multiple genres; rules are included for gaming from Ancients through World War II. Neil Thomas does a good job in reflecting how warfare changed over time and that can affect what can and cannot be accomplished in a given scenario. For example, in scenario #8 there is a woods at the base of the hill on the left front side. In the Medieval rules there is no troop type that can enter woods. That is not true of, say, the Ancients or Horse and Musket periods. So that particular terrain piece will play a significantly different role in a Medieval setting, as opposed to a Horse and Musket one. Defining the genre will then help further scope your decisions down.<br />
<br />
For this experiment I am writing a programmed opponent to use in the Medieval rules of <i>One-Hour Wargames</i>.<br />
<br />
I hope I haven't lost everyone yet. I know. Pretty specific. Nonetheless, hopefully you can use this with a little tweaking for other genres, rules, and maybe even scenarios once I explain my rationale behind my program.<br />
<h2>
Program for Medieval Red Army, Scenario #8, One-Hour Wargames Rules</h2>
<div>
The first decision to be made by the Red Baron is deployment. Because army selection is a random roll, I cannot tell you specifically which units will be deployed initially on the hill, which will come on turn 3, and which will come on turn 6. That said, I can tell you the order of precedence for unit selection for those three groups.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All instructions will use the following grid reference system.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ug5WFaESQns/Xej1fw3AlfI/AAAAAAAAF70/Q6B1boAzCL0ob4id_dwQGt8MUurffl0nQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/Grid.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ug5WFaESQns/Xej1fw3AlfI/AAAAAAAAF70/Q6B1boAzCL0ob4id_dwQGt8MUurffl0nQCK4BGAYYCw/s640/Grid.jpeg" width="626" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Please note that I regulate measurements and unit placement using a square grid. The dots shown on the board indicate the grid I use. The grid size is the width of one unit's frontage. More than one unit can fit in a square, but one is in front and one in back. Both units must either face the same direction or be back-to-back. Contact (hand-to-hand combat) is defined as being in the same square, so units must have the necessary movement to enter the enemy's square in order to be considered in contact.</div>
<div>
<ol></ol>
</div>
</div>
<h3>
Hill Deployment</h3>
<h4>
Force Selection</h4>
<div>
Choose two units from the Red Army forces using the following order of preference: Men-at-Arms, Knights, Levy, then Archers. Note: if you have exactly three Knight units, only one should be deployed to the hill.</div>
<h4>
Force Placement</h4>
<div>
One unit will be placed at D3 facing to the left (East) and the other at D4 facing South.</div>
<h4>
Rationale</h4>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The hill forces need to hold as long as possible until reinforcements arrive. Men-at-Arms take one-half casualties due to their armor and one-half casualties if they are uphill, so they stand the best chance of survival.</li>
<li>Knights are the fastest moving unit, so they are the best choice (in this Baron's opinion) to enter via the road on turn 3. However, you can position some on the hill. They would get half casualties if uphill and hit back at their opponent at +2.</li>
<li>Despite the name Levy are not really that bad. They hit better than Archers in melee (and you will be in melee pretty quickly).</li>
<li>As the scenario name implies, this is about melee. Archers cannot afford to stand toe-to-toe defending the hill. They need to stay out of melee in order to fire as many shots as possible (where they get the +2). If they try and defend the hill from the start the enemy will only allow them one shot, at best, before the enemy Knights come crashing in, at which time they become -2.</li>
<li>A unit in D3 will have its right flank protected by the woods from melee and shooting and is positioned to ensure that the hill is not flanked.</li>
<li>A unit in D4 will have its left flank protected from melee by the unit in D3 and protected from shooting by the woods. As this is the closest point for a frontal assault on the hill, this is the grid selected to secure the right flank.</li>
</ul>
<h3>
Road Deployment</h3>
</div>
<h4>
Force Selection</h4>
<div>
Choose two units from the Red Army forces using the following order of preference: Knights, Archers, Levy, and Men-at-Arms. Given that you must have a minimum of three Knights, this will always be two Knight units unless you have disobeyed my orders, you traitorous dog.</div>
<h4>
Force Placement</h4>
<div>
If available, move first with: Knights, Levy, Men-at-Arms, then Archers.</div>
<h4>
Rationale</h4>
<div>
<ul>
<li>As you have more distance to cover to reach the hill, your fastest units should be deployed on the road.</li>
<li>Knights are at the fore so they are not delayed in reaching the hill by slower units.</li>
<li>Archers on the left flank will have more opportunity to engage in shooting as they will be away from the objective. Archers on the baseline have the potential to shoot enemy Knights attacking the left flank of the hill, or those sweeping around. If the enemy engage them, all the better, as that means they are not engaging the units on the objective.</li>
</ul>
<h3>
Right Flank Deployment</h3>
</div>
<div>
The two remaining units will be deployed here.</div>
<h3>
Operating Rules</h3>
<div>
These guide your decisions on moving and fighting with Red Army units. </div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Once a unit is on the hill, it may not move off. That is the objective. (Because I am using a square grid that means that units cannot charge off of the hill into units at the base of the hill.)</li>
<li>If there is an empty position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Archers – must move to occupy that position.</li>
<li>If there is a Blue Army unit occupying a position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Archers – must move to melee that unit. The closest Archer unit must move to a position where they shoot at the Blue Army unit.</li>
<li>Archers may not move off of the South row of squares/more than 6" from the South edge.</li>
</ol>
<h2>
My Ask</h2>
</div>
<div>
If you use this programmed opponent, please let me know what worked and what didn't. Was there a hole in the program (something not covered)? Was there a situation where what you were to do, or how you were to do it, ambiguous?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you have any battle reports using the Red Baron, send me the links, either in the comments, email, or Facebook. If you have a programmed opponent to try, let me know what it is. (Does this format work as a template?) I am especially interested in a Cautious or an Aggressive Blue Baron for this scenario.</div>
Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-4285204793108323462019-12-02T11:01:00.002-07:002019-12-02T11:01:47.278-07:00Playing Against Mr BabbageWhenever I read someone's post about Dan Mersey's <i>The Men Who Would Be Kings</i> (<i>TMWWBK</i>) inevitably someone will mention the solo rules <i>Playing Against Mr Babbage</i> (<i>PAMB</i>) that are included in the rules. To be honest, that is the only reason I purchased those rules. So, what are they?<br />
<br />
<i>PAMB</i> is essentially a programmed opponent, mixed with some rule changes to <i>TMWWBK</i> to compensate for the fact that the programmed opponent will never be as smart as the player. In general I do not like modifying rules, even for the programmed side. As a solo gamer I acknowledge that gameplay will never be as challenging as a live opponent, so I solo game to try out tactics or strategies, refine lists or decks, or to create an interesting or amusing narrative.<br />
<br />
So, how is <i>PAMB</i> programmed? Basically it is a simple rule-based system with priorities identified for each unit type and general actions to take if the unit-based ones do not apply. The first system is for programming the natives, but includes a second system for programming the Imperial forces. Here is a small sampling, to give you an idea. (But not all. You should buy the book.)<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>I like my shooting units to find cover and stay there. Failing that, I like them to advance to short range and fire, avoiding melee.</li>
<li>I like my melee units to advance quickly into contact, towards the closest enemy they can see, except as noted in rule 3.</li>
<li>...</li>
</ol>
Pretty simple, but descriptive enough for the player to reasonably determine what should be done when it comes time to act with a unit. Note, however, that the rules are not written in order of precedence (as indicated by rule 2 stating there is an exception in rule 3). So you have to read through all of the rules to see which one makes the most sense.<br />
<br />
As stated previously, <i>PAMB</i> also has rules that modify the <i>TMWWBK</i> rules, such as randomly appearing native units (similar to the Two Hour Wargames' <i>PEF</i> concept), native action modifiers (which include the unit leaving the table), and recycling native units.<br />
<br />
My dream has always been for solo gamers to be able to 'trade' programmed opponents. My schemes have always been too complex - essentially requiring other gamers to have computer programming skills to define the rules - and I can see that <i>PAMB</i>'s method is a good start towards codifying such rules for programmed opponents. The one change I would make is that rules have to be in order of precedence and that when you hit a rule that applies, you stop evaluating the rules.<br />
<br />
I still think that generic opponents would be harder to create than ones for a specific scenario for a specific time period. Maybe that will be my next project.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-88913937101000360292018-12-23T13:34:00.003-07:002018-12-23T13:34:42.744-07:00Hostile Tactical A.I. Review – Part 2This is part 2 of my review of <i>Hostile Tactical A.I.</i> (<i>HTAI</i>). You can find <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2018/12/hostile-tactical-ai-review-part-1.html" target="_blank">part 1 here</a>.<br />
<br />
Before I get started with the test game I need to make one other point about the <i>Hostile Tactical A.I.</i> (<i>HTAI</i>) product. When I mentioned the shards I forgot to mention that the cards, Aces and Jacks through Kings, are not in equal proportions. There are more Aces than Kings, which have more than Queens, etc. resulting in about twice as many Aces as Jacks. This is important to know if you are going to use the shards mechanic for anything.<br />
<br />
As I used that mechanic for determining which model would act next, I had to assign a card to each model. That allowed me to prioritize which models acted more often. In the scenario I had the following forces on the programmed side:<br />
<ul>
<li>Rifle Leader</li>
<li>Rifle Sniper</li>
<li>Rifle Soldier (x2)</li>
<li>Line Leader</li>
<li>Line Brawler</li>
<li>Line Soldier (x5)</li>
</ul>
An interesting aspect of <i>One-Hour Skirmish Wargames</i> (<i>OHSW</i>) is that Leaders are better than Soldiers because their bonuses are added when attacking and defending, but it is the only type that also adds their bonus when checking morale. So being aggressive and losing a Leader severely impacts your force's morale. An interesting question to ask is should Leaders have a priority to acting (be associated with an Ace or King) or should they hold back (be associated with a Queen or Jack)?<br />
<br />
I think there are several ways to resolve that question, one of which is to randomize it. You could draw a card and if the die roll is 1-2 make it an Ace, 3 a King, 4 a Queen. and 5-6 a Jack if you want to focus on the extremes. If you want to focus more on moderate values you could choose 1 is an Ace, 2-3 a King, 4-5 a Queen, and 6 a Jack. Really the choice is yours on what you want to do; this is a toolkit. I thought it was important to point out that the probabilities are not equal.<br />
<br />
Also, I also decided to go with a square grid instead of freeform movement because, well, that's my thing. I decided that I would allow one diagonal for every six squares, or fraction thereof. So a normal infantry move (6") gets one diagonal when counting squares, otherwise you must count horizontally or vertically only.<br />
<br />
Another change is that I decided to try the 'flintlock option', where models armed with muskets and carbines require 2 action points (AP) to fire and rifles will require 3 AP. This will slow down the action, but that is okay. It allows for more movement and close combat, but de-emphasizes rapid fire. This is more a factor about <i>OHSW</i> and has nothing to do with <i>HTAI</i>.<br />
<h2>
Setup</h2>
I decided to randomize the terrain placement. Last time I noticed that I placed trees in 'bands' rather than randomly. This time I started by dividing the board into quadrants, rolled a die for each tree and rise and placed them in the appropriate section. I then divided each quadrant into smaller quadrants (sexdecrants?) and rolled again. At that point I simply placed them within the appropriate sub-section, aligning the terrain piece with the square grid.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZWTn3fB4RNs/XB7Y4xmeZ3I/AAAAAAAAFmw/l0O3QqFjCsQPOSU7Ig7wAQCvWfeHSDV-gCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/01-Setup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="435" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZWTn3fB4RNs/XB7Y4xmeZ3I/AAAAAAAAFmw/l0O3QqFjCsQPOSU7Ig7wAQCvWfeHSDV-gCK4BGAYYCw/s640/01-Setup.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As before, the British (defenders) setup first. They had the bottom half of the board. I did not want to randomize placement of the British forces, as I thought that would make them too ineffective. Additionally, they were supposed to be in defense of the cannon. So, I generally placed them around the cannon, but within cover, as much as possible. The Line troops were mainly to defend the cannon while the Rifles were to sit back and pick off French attackers, as shown in the image below.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aELsTnaoSD4/XB7ZWHp1SiI/AAAAAAAAFm8/qMQzTV1EXPoAKYzCcCCiA6MzIDD6QC1SACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/03-BritishSetup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aELsTnaoSD4/XB7ZWHp1SiI/AAAAAAAAFm8/qMQzTV1EXPoAKYzCcCCiA6MzIDD6QC1SACK4BGAYYCw/s640/03-BritishSetup.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The French (attackers) have the top quarter of the board. One change from last scenario was to scatter the cavalry across the board, rather than cluster them into a unit. This would allow for more opportunities to spring forward and take out any aggressive British who had advanced too far forward.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AZDux1TAzW0/XB7Zk5ad6hI/AAAAAAAAFnE/6gU2ESEGTbwgc0P1V3cbqZyW4d0gaxLzQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/04-FrenchSetup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="532" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AZDux1TAzW0/XB7Zk5ad6hI/AAAAAAAAFnE/6gU2ESEGTbwgc0P1V3cbqZyW4d0gaxLzQCK4BGAYYCw/s640/04-FrenchSetup.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As I indicated at the start of the post because of the probability of drawing Aces over Jacks, assigning cards to models was one way of determining how aggressively a model would be used. I decided to assign the secondary leader (the Line Sergeant) to a King of Spades and the primary leader (the Rifle Sergeant) to a Queen of Spades. The Line would be more active in their defense so they were Aces and Kings (the Ace of Spades being the Brawler) and the Rifles would be all Queens. As you will see, this has an impact on how frequently Line models act compared to Rifles.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KaWE5wyw3Lc/XB7ac3iDMoI/AAAAAAAAFnU/S0rqQvwlplM4QAiBj7N3WImePeWpHKhoACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/02-CardAssignment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KaWE5wyw3Lc/XB7ac3iDMoI/AAAAAAAAFnU/S0rqQvwlplM4QAiBj7N3WImePeWpHKhoACK4BGAYYCw/s640/02-CardAssignment.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
In the image above 'S' stands for Spades, 'H' for Hearts, and so on for the suit of the cards. The value of the card – Aces, Kings, and Queens – is shown below the suit. Note that no models are assigned as Jacks, so when these cards were turned for model selection they were ignored and another drawn.<br />
<br />
Note, in the commentary below, items in <i>italics</i> indicates text from the <i>HTAI</i> cards or rules. Initially I showed the text on the card, as a means of identifying where it is found, but after a while stopped (I am sure you got the concept by then). As a reminder, here is what an <i>HTAI</i> card looks like.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wDuo9KNcNog/XB_kjr0d0_I/AAAAAAAAFs0/FJgplCSClU4pZuv-bMt5x71Ybpo6XLOsQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/sample-card.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wDuo9KNcNog/XB_kjr0d0_I/AAAAAAAAFs0/FJgplCSClU4pZuv-bMt5x71Ybpo6XLOsQCK4BGAYYCw/s640/sample-card.jpg" width="467" /></a></div>
<br />
At the top, in the blue band, is the <i>Reaction</i> order on the left and the shard/card designation on the right.<br />
<br />
In the middle (white) section are the main orders. The <i>Patrol</i> order is for when the programmed model is unaware of the enemy while the <i>Attack</i> order is for when it is aware. The text is the actual order. Although there is ample space to include the entire order, only part of it is listed on the card so you must lookup the keyword in the rules to find the full order. In this example <i>Pace</i> is the keyword for the <i>Patrol</i> order and <i>Hostile</i> is the keyword for the <i>Attack</i> order.<br />
<br />
The bottom (black) section has three pieces of information: the compass, an enemy selection descriptor, and two movement dice.<br />
<br />
The compass is largely used for order that indicate direction and not an enemy, such as the <i>Flank</i> order. The enemy selection descriptor, in this example the keyword <i>Furthest</i>, indicates the enemy model in relation to the model being ordered. Some descriptors are distance-oriented while others are status-oriented. In this play through I will allow any asterisk in the compass to apply to the enemy selection descriptor also.<br />
<br />
Finally the movement dice indicate how aggressive a move will be. If <i>1D6</i> is indicated, the red die is used. If <i>2D6</i> is indicated, then both dice are added together. A sum of 7 or more indicates a foot model will take two Move actions. A sum of 10 or more indicates a mounted model will take two Move actions. If using <i>2D6</i> and either die is a '6', the model will take an additional Move action.<br />
<h3>
Turn 1</h3>
British won initiative and drew 11 AP.<br />
<br />
Drew the Ace of Clubs, so that identified the Soldier to act.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VCdYixwNaBc/XB7cMmIefII/AAAAAAAAFn4/DGF_sNyy_UIh3LKkLDj6OqWDyW8U5tO8wCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/05-FigureSelection.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="78" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VCdYixwNaBc/XB7cMmIefII/AAAAAAAAFn4/DGF_sNyy_UIh3LKkLDj6OqWDyW8U5tO8wCK4BGAYYCw/s320/05-FigureSelection.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QzexfoajE8Y/XB7cPdwmHwI/AAAAAAAAFoA/9d0Gls71FDYtPvhxDNT4BjxQfSiBuriBgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/06-FigureSelection.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="304" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QzexfoajE8Y/XB7cPdwmHwI/AAAAAAAAFoA/9d0Gls71FDYtPvhxDNT4BjxQfSiBuriBgCK4BGAYYCw/s320/06-FigureSelection.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
Another card was drawn to determine the action.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p6hEGPwOmO8/XB7cXIl7v7I/AAAAAAAAFoI/sT5AnA0KQAcCvfo-x_0IJn5HiQSafyJNQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/07-AttackOrder.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="124" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p6hEGPwOmO8/XB7cXIl7v7I/AAAAAAAAFoI/sT5AnA0KQAcCvfo-x_0IJn5HiQSafyJNQCK4BGAYYCw/s320/07-AttackOrder.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The card indicated under the Attack section that it was to be a <i>Defensive</i> order, moving <i>1D6 towards the player</i>. The rule for <i>Defensive</i> says the model moves towards the player and then attacks. The model attempts to stay in cover (that is the defensive part). As I was not using the movement indicator (<i>1D6</i> or <i>2D6</i>) to determine the actual movement distance, but rather the number of Move actions it will take, <i>1D6</i> would always result in a single Move action, so no card was drawn. The Solider moved then fired as shown in the image below. (No card was drawn for determining the target as only one enemy model was in range.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bfSg7RZgyjs/XB8ANQN518I/AAAAAAAAFoY/8FUOcSA-xEYlMe8z1VpIaaxjYwpkAYhkgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/08-British.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="552" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bfSg7RZgyjs/XB8ANQN518I/AAAAAAAAFoY/8FUOcSA-xEYlMe8z1VpIaaxjYwpkAYhkgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/08-British.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
A Joker was drawn during combat resolution, ending the turn. Here is the situation at the end of the turn.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uJUyOaUOzR0/XB8AUuKH4ZI/AAAAAAAAFog/BMxeviT4Fzk6AReMqeDLCtb3L4p_tfNwgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/09-BritishEnd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="436" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uJUyOaUOzR0/XB8AUuKH4ZI/AAAAAAAAFog/BMxeviT4Fzk6AReMqeDLCtb3L4p_tfNwgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/09-BritishEnd.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The early turn end meant the French were now under time pressure as they effectively had only four turns to accomplish their mission. Also note that due to <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2018/12/one-hour-skirmish-wargames-follow-up.html" target="_blank">discussions with the author of <i>OHSW</i></a>, I found out that Jokers are ignored during the End-of-Turn activities (casualty resolution and morale check) and the deck is <u>not</u> re-shuffled between turns, so there are fewer Jokers going into subsequent turns, generally making them longer.<br />
<br />
Both sides passed morale and there were no casualties to resolve.<br />
<h3>
Turn 2</h3>
French won initiative and drew 12 AP.<br />
<br />
One of the French Soldiers moved twice and fired at the British Soldier in the open, but missed. The French Cavalry then moved twice and charged the same Soldier, killing him in close combat. From that position he snaped off a shot and downed the British Soldier behind the cannon.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t6hzbaQAYGA/XB8A3xWL_WI/AAAAAAAAFo4/q4_FWaHZjf0bz9eCYR_wKDfA6RkXRl-owCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/10-French.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t6hzbaQAYGA/XB8A3xWL_WI/AAAAAAAAFo4/q4_FWaHZjf0bz9eCYR_wKDfA6RkXRl-owCK4BGAYYCw/s640/10-French.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0NY34Q4aq8w/XB8Av76y0uI/AAAAAAAAFow/5QqRtYAGUGELlwFiY8G_eh-S0u60BvYtgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/11-FrenchEnd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="488" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0NY34Q4aq8w/XB8Av76y0uI/AAAAAAAAFow/5QqRtYAGUGELlwFiY8G_eh-S0u60BvYtgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/11-FrenchEnd.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
<i>Note that I am not trying not to go into much depth for the French as this is more about </i>TSIA<i> than </i>OHSW<i>.</i></blockquote>
British drew 12 AP.<br />
<br />
Amazingly, the British drew the Ace of Clubs again, resulting in the same Soldier acting as in the previous turn. This time, however, his order was <i>Hostile: 2D6 towards player</i>. So a draw of another card revealed the move was '9', so it was two Move actions. Drawing another card for direction it was towards the closest enemy.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y59VsUOr50o/XB8CS-gelkI/AAAAAAAAFpI/-WdrzJrox4gfdCrKvpBYvLhQlHVxxijrgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/13-Direction.jpg" imageanchor="1"></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B5YqOqMHNxM/XB8CXhnlx2I/AAAAAAAAFpQ/C8RsYCiHZHY27hI8amm2kANr_mqxyx5ygCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/12-BritishOrder.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="96" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B5YqOqMHNxM/XB8CXhnlx2I/AAAAAAAAFpQ/C8RsYCiHZHY27hI8amm2kANr_mqxyx5ygCK4BGAYYCw/s320/12-BritishOrder.jpg" width="320" /></a><img border="0" height="131" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y59VsUOr50o/XB8CS-gelkI/AAAAAAAAFpI/-WdrzJrox4gfdCrKvpBYvLhQlHVxxijrgCK4BGAYYCw/s320/13-Direction.jpg" width="320" /><br />
<br />
The British 'berserker' charged forward two Moves (12 squares) toward the French Soldier and fired from behind a tree, downing his target. That is certainly a move I would not have taken!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-am6DsNISxX8/XB8C8xkoMDI/AAAAAAAAFpg/1Fl5ReMv0fkN8Vz8CBu7q-CkcE-vR0sGACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/14-Berserker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-am6DsNISxX8/XB8C8xkoMDI/AAAAAAAAFpg/1Fl5ReMv0fkN8Vz8CBu7q-CkcE-vR0sGACK4BGAYYCw/s640/14-Berserker.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The King of Hearts was drawn next, indicating it was the Soldier by the Rifle, directly in front of the charging French Cavalryman.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QFSsFPHHskg/XB8D21-BgwI/AAAAAAAAFps/81euun6utK08o3LblkidrcekOz5kUp4SACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/15-Selection.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QFSsFPHHskg/XB8D21-BgwI/AAAAAAAAFps/81euun6utK08o3LblkidrcekOz5kUp4SACK4BGAYYCw/s200/15-Selection.jpg" width="197" /></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4usHiJLxK8k/XB8D5hFXxPI/AAAAAAAAFp0/GABRRzdWEvYLvNmStOM5jSJ-N-jrdhEtwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/16-Selection.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4usHiJLxK8k/XB8D5hFXxPI/AAAAAAAAFp0/GABRRzdWEvYLvNmStOM5jSJ-N-jrdhEtwCK4BGAYYCw/s400/16-Selection.jpg" width="397" /></a><br />
<br />
His order was <i>React: </i>*, meaning another card was drawn to determine the Reaction order. Reaction orders tend to be 'stronger' or 'special'. In this case I drew the <i>Rally</i> reaction.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--hqnnezsFV8/XB8EXJ_CzBI/AAAAAAAAFqE/4QcJ70NaxxMsfQuLcsCEpj47SNCsmiUKQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/17-React.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="152" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--hqnnezsFV8/XB8EXJ_CzBI/AAAAAAAAFqE/4QcJ70NaxxMsfQuLcsCEpj47SNCsmiUKQCK4BGAYYCw/s320/17-React.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-loikgphH00o/XB8EZrnxFXI/AAAAAAAAFqM/2d_xRw3MIfERfpnb6vL8cwtGyFAv2RO3wCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/18-Rally.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-loikgphH00o/XB8EZrnxFXI/AAAAAAAAFqM/2d_xRw3MIfERfpnb6vL8cwtGyFAv2RO3wCK4BGAYYCw/s400/18-Rally.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
The rules for a <i>Rally</i> reaction are to recover or help fallen comrade within 2D6. As we saw in the first test game of <i>OHSW</i>, downed models are very suspectible to being charged and automatically eliminated in combat. As the downed Soldier by the cannon was within two Move actions (I drew another card for movement distance and it was a '9', indicating two Moves), I decided that this Soldier would bravely positions himself by the downed Soldier. He then fired on the French Cavalryman, missing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iSghV6M4gXo/XB8FVn9eKZI/AAAAAAAAFqY/ACM4FoxdMbcuM7uTCegLn5eUIpvXN0OOgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/19-Rally.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="466" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iSghV6M4gXo/XB8FVn9eKZI/AAAAAAAAFqY/ACM4FoxdMbcuM7uTCegLn5eUIpvXN0OOgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/19-Rally.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
French won initiative and drew 4 AP.<br />
<br />
The French Cavalryman charged the British Rifle and cut him down in close combat.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ospFEVys6og/XB8F93rpR9I/AAAAAAAAFqw/5AX0WBG8SMESbls06DYd7vCT6cx9MTJlQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/20-French.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="440" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ospFEVys6og/XB8F93rpR9I/AAAAAAAAFqw/5AX0WBG8SMESbls06DYd7vCT6cx9MTJlQCK4BGAYYCw/s640/20-French.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
British drew 4 AP.<br />
<br />
The British drew an Ace of Diamonds for model selection. Unfortunately that is the Soldier down by the cannon. It took several more draws, but I eventually got the Ace of Hearts, which was the Soldier standing on the left side of the cannon. His order was <i>Defensive: 1D6 towards Objective</i>. As he was at the objective (the cannon) that meant no move was necessary. He was also in cover, which <i>Defensive</i> requires the model to seek. There were two enemies within range to fire at, so I drew a card to determine the target and got <i>Furthest</i>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b2A4VrDP5KA/XB8GrFj8_EI/AAAAAAAAFq8/NeD_yEFF_Qgl_L_erlNSLHlm1WzRmACXACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/21-Order.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="76" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b2A4VrDP5KA/XB8GrFj8_EI/AAAAAAAAFq8/NeD_yEFF_Qgl_L_erlNSLHlm1WzRmACXACK4BGAYYCw/s320/21-Order.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L6SL-pWKoN4/XB8G3T5MDHI/AAAAAAAAFrE/3S6v1fig1BYRyM14bx6cqwY42Eba3KaJgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/22-Direction.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L6SL-pWKoN4/XB8G3T5MDHI/AAAAAAAAFrE/3S6v1fig1BYRyM14bx6cqwY42Eba3KaJgCK4BGAYYCw/s320/22-Direction.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>As an aside, I like using the card for this. Getting </i>Closest<i> meant he would have been tracking the movement of the Cavalryman, while </i>Furthest<i> would have meant he was letting those to his right handle the Cavalryman, who was now past his periphery, leaving him to track the Soldier that moved up into cover and fired. Leaving these decisions to the system takes any bias out of your hands and puts it into the cards.</i></blockquote>
Note, however, that the compass (also a part of the directional indicator) contained an asterisk, so a <i>Reaction</i> order had to be taken first. And of course it was a <i>Charge!</i>, which meant the model had to attempt to move into close combat, if possible, otherwise it would fire. As the model was not within close combat range (12 squares, as that was as far as the model could move given the number of AP that was drawn), it simply fired on the original target; the instinct to charge was ignored. (Tell me how you might have interpreted it.) Even though the French soldier was behind solid cover, he was downed by the shot.<br />
<br />
With only 2 AP remaining I drew another card to see which model would act. I drew the Ace of Spades and got the Portuguese Brawler. Given that only 2 AP remained, the model could either move once or fire, but not both. The order drawn was <i>Hostile: 2D6 towards Objective</i>, so it was clear that I had to take the Move action.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QIXNSX5Um3w/XB8I0Y5iETI/AAAAAAAAFrU/gsRMg1WScXwtq0736s6_CUJ3dEjMWiOIACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/23-British.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QIXNSX5Um3w/XB8I0Y5iETI/AAAAAAAAFrU/gsRMg1WScXwtq0736s6_CUJ3dEjMWiOIACK4BGAYYCw/s640/23-British.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
<i>On reviewing this it appears that I had one more AP remaining, so I should have drawn for another model to act. Oh well.</i></blockquote>
French won initiative and drew 9 AP.<br />
<br />
I had sort of gone on a 'Knight's Gambit' with my Cavalryman. I decided to continue pushing it as one possible path was to take two Move actions to the Soldier guarding the cannon, kill him in close combat, and a third Move to the downed Soldier, automatically killing that model, for a total of 9 AP. If I could take out those two Soldiers it would put the French way ahead in terms of morale.<br />
<br />
The first charge, however, resulted in the death of the French Cavalryman. That feisty Soldier with the <i>Rally</i> reaction that went to cover his downed comrade was determined! So much for my plans.<br />
<br />
As the Portuguese Brawler had advanced a little it just put him in range of the French Sergeant's musket. The Sergeant fired and downed the Portuguese Soldier.<br />
<br />
Another French soldier fired at the 'berserker' British Soldier and, despite having a shot against cover, downed him also.<br />
<br />
The final French AP was spent advancing a French Soldier towards the cannon.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FVZu8jFnsGA/XB8Kp7MKf9I/AAAAAAAAFrg/0SybvyVt-0ka-HaU0bpulZAkbwSBgqH1gCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/24-French.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="492" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FVZu8jFnsGA/XB8Kp7MKf9I/AAAAAAAAFrg/0SybvyVt-0ka-HaU0bpulZAkbwSBgqH1gCK4BGAYYCw/s640/24-French.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As a note, there were at that point two British casualties and three downed, while the French had one casualty and two downed.<br />
<br />
British drew 9 AP. (What is it with these duplicate AP draws against two decks!?!)<br />
<br />
Drawing the King of Spades the British Line Sergeant finally got to act. His orders were to <i>Flank: 2D6</i>, which the rules say you draw to determine a general direction, heading for cover in that direction. The direction drawn was NW, so to the model's left and towards the enemy. It drew a '9', so two Move actions. An idea I had been toying with is that for if a '6' is drawn on either die, it would indicate a third Move action. In this case it had one, so this model would consume all of the AP moving to that flank position.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hKvmuBg4QoI/XB8Lqh2gygI/AAAAAAAAFrs/DGk9mRvVRW0sDDM36IviYSskcXWNtqpRACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/25-British.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="534" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hKvmuBg4QoI/XB8Lqh2gygI/AAAAAAAAFrs/DGk9mRvVRW0sDDM36IviYSskcXWNtqpRACK4BGAYYCw/s640/25-British.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
French won initiative and drew 8 AP.<br />
<br />
The forward French Soldier moved into cover and fired at the British Soldier by the cannon but missed. Another Soldier advanced and took a shot at the Sergeant, also missing. Meanwhile, on the French left flank the French Soldier and the Cavalryman advanced up the flank.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fXi3hGUymqo/XB8NIZ2IzhI/AAAAAAAAFr4/P-v_cGimlm4IwA4qm63ys2adycvxZkw9gCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/26-French.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="456" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fXi3hGUymqo/XB8NIZ2IzhI/AAAAAAAAFr4/P-v_cGimlm4IwA4qm63ys2adycvxZkw9gCK4BGAYYCw/s640/26-French.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
British drew 10 AP.<br />
<br />
The British Line Sergeant again got to act, He drew the order <i>Hostile: 2D6 towards Objective</i>. The movement draw was '8', so it was for two Move actions. One thing to note is that there were no enemy at the objective, but there was one near.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O9-9INLmN1M/XB8Nr8juvvI/AAAAAAAAFsE/9VHK2_znfMYJRrc3frX1CrmToO3oQKYVgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/27-Threat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="392" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O9-9INLmN1M/XB8Nr8juvvI/AAAAAAAAFsE/9VHK2_znfMYJRrc3frX1CrmToO3oQKYVgCK4BGAYYCw/s640/27-Threat.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
So I interpreted the order as indicating the Sergeant would attack the French Soldier after moving twice. He attacked with the bayonet and won. He could still take a Fire action so I drew a card to determine which of the French models it would attack and it came up <i>Closest</i>, but with an asterisk, so I needed to determine the <i>Reaction</i> order. I drew <i>Double Time</i>, which read <i>enemy takes two Moves in a row</i>. Now I do not like solo systems to be able to 'break the rules', allowing a model to act twice in an Action Phase such as Move-Fire then Move again would do. So I determined that, because a model can take three Move actions in a phase, that meant the Sergeant would take a third Move action, rather than a Fire action. (After moving three times there are not enough AP to fire.)<br />
<br />
After much card flipping I finally got the Queen of Spades, the Rifle Sergeant, who drew the order <i>Defensive: 1D6 towards Objective</i>, with a <i>Reaction</i> order of <i>Secondary.</i> <i>Secondary</i> means that the model uses any secondary weapons or gear that they possess. In that context it meant nothing (the model had no secondary weapon or gear), so it was ignored. The final result was that he moved out of cover towards the cannon for one Move action.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oQyHIFAoak8/XB8Pqcuz59I/AAAAAAAAFsQ/jq3c3nYYV-kfD1cgqK_eWCpv6emRebj_QCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/28-British.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="384" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oQyHIFAoak8/XB8Pqcuz59I/AAAAAAAAFsQ/jq3c3nYYV-kfD1cgqK_eWCpv6emRebj_QCK4BGAYYCw/s640/28-British.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
French won initiative and drew 7 AP.<br />
<br />
The French Sergeant fired at the British Line Sergeant, barely downing him. The French Soldier nearby moved up and bayonets the Sergeant, then moved again and bayonets the other British Soldier. Those losses really hurt the British.<br />
<br />
Finally, another French Soldier advanced forward to put pressure on the British holding the cannon.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vNqthklKeHQ/XB8QkSRtn5I/AAAAAAAAFsc/HrmfTN9t5nIcjy7CWHyHPUgKWLA8RSX9wCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/29-French.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="416" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vNqthklKeHQ/XB8QkSRtn5I/AAAAAAAAFsc/HrmfTN9t5nIcjy7CWHyHPUgKWLA8RSX9wCK4BGAYYCw/s640/29-French.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Both player's decks were down to less than 1/2 of their cards, yet still no Joker had appeared, making for a very long turn. The British had lost four models, one being a Leader, and had two downed. The French had lost two models, one being a Cavalryman, and had two models downed.<br />
<br />
British won initiative (finally) and drew 12 AP.<br />
<br />
A Rifleman on the left-center got to act, drawing the order <i>Retreat: 2D6</i> (move '3', so only one Move action) towards cover. Note that a <i>Retreat</i> does not have you attack at the end, so this is simply a move. Wow, I guess the French pushing forward and having witnessed the bayoneting of two British took its toll on his nerves! (I did not expect that!)<br />
<br />
After a lot of flipping to find a card for someone not dead or downed the Soldier to the left at the cannon got a <i>Flank: 2D6</i> order. The move indicated three Move actions (because a '6' was in the move dice), direction of <i>East</i>! I guess he saw the threat to his right. He fired at the <i>Weakest</i> enemy, which would be the Cavalryman (as he only gets one card of cover from the rise while the Soldier would get two). A Joker was drawn and the turn ended.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lJJrhoAgtek/XB8ScugvZoI/AAAAAAAAFso/IsZBP6i3TqI9PjzZnMEICLY5aVbbD2FCQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/30-British.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="408" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lJJrhoAgtek/XB8ScugvZoI/AAAAAAAAFso/IsZBP6i3TqI9PjzZnMEICLY5aVbbD2FCQCK4BGAYYCw/s640/30-British.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The first thing is a Morale Check. The British have a Motivation of +3 (defined by the scenario) and had four casualties. A 2+ will succeed and they drew a 2! (Cutting it close.) The French have a Motivation of +2 and had two casualties. Any card would suffice, and they passed easily.<br />
<br />
When I drew for Casualty Resolution (Red is Dead and Black is Back), both the British Soldier and the Portuguese Brawler were eliminated. For the French it turned out that both of their soldiers were also dead.<br />
<br />
At that point the British had lost six models and had five remaining. The deck is a sliver, but one Joker had still not been revealed, so next turn was likely to be a very short turn. The French had lost four models and had 12 remaining. Their deck was also a sliver, but it had shown both Jokers (the second was drawn during Casualty Resolution).<br />
<br />
As it takes a long time to document a game, I am going to leave it off at this point as the review is about <i>HTAI</i>, not <i>OHSW</i>, and I have a good enough feel to complete the review. (Oh, all right, the French won as the British failed their morale check on turn 4.)<br />
<h3>
Initial Thoughts</h3>
<div>
First, let's be clear, there is no "artificial intelligence" embedded into this product. It is just a marketing thing and no one really expects that it would actually have 'intelligence', right? In order for it to have intelligence, there has to be some input from the game upon which the system processes.<br />
<br />
So now that we got that out of the way, what exactly does the product do? Well, it provides structure to make decisions randomly. Every non-computer-based solo system I have encountered either was simply a random roll to choose from several interesting options or was programmed (i.e. when event X occurred then action Y would be triggered). The former was much more flexible in that it could be used in a variety of situations, whereas the latter was a richer experience but because of its strict inputs was inflexible. (If you have experience with something that has neither of these restrictions, let me know.) <i>HTAI</i> does pretty well in providing interesting orders for your non-player troops.</div>
<h2>
Rules Ratings</h2>
Using the review system from before, here are the game ratings for <i>Hostile: Tactical A.I.</i> (<i>HTAI</i>).<br />
<br />
<b>Drama</b> – do the rules create tension during play?<br />
<br />
Because we are dealing with just what <i>HTAI</i> adds to rules, I would say that sometimes <i>HTAI</i> makes unexpected moves. For the most part, however, they are not necessarily good moves, just unexpected. It sometimes throws the player off balance, which leads to some drama, but mostly just distracts the player from the mission.<br />
<br />
These rules rate 2 out of 5 in Drama.<br />
<br />
<b>Uncertainty</b> – are there enough elements that introduce uncertainty into the game?<br />
<br />
Because <i>HTAI</i> is, at the heart of it, a way of structuring random elements, it is all about uncertainty. As I said previously, the two core questions a good solo system must answer are: which model acts next, and what will the model do when it is time to act. <i>HTAI</i> answers those questions very clearly. As the rule set I was using is very much oriented towards reacting to your opponent's move while trying to fulfill your mission, this same scenario can play out an untold number of ways using <i>HTAI</i>.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
These rules rate 5 out of 5 in Uncertainty.<br />
<br />
<b>Engaging</b> – do the rules allow the player to make meaningful decisions that lead to consequences?<br />
<br />
The whole point of this product is to take as many of the decisions for the programmed side <i>away</i> from the player as possible, so in this case a low score is probably better, not worse, but that is confusing so I will call this rating <b>Lack of Administration</b>. There were times when I had to interpret what the card meant or whether it should simply be ignored because it did not apply in the current context, so some administration is required.<br />
<br />
These rules rate 4 out of 5 in Lack of Administration.<br />
<br />
<b>Unobtrusiveness</b> – do the rules get in the way?<br />
<br />
No, unless you use <i>HTAI</i> more strictly than I do. For example, I could have used the movement dice to indicate how many inches or squares the model moved, not just how many Move actions they took. Had I done that then some models would have fallen short of cover because they rolled low. Also, I did not allow the programmed models to 'cheat' by breaking the core rules. (Maybe this is necessary as the random selection will never be as smart as you, so the game needs to cheat in order to provide you with a greater challenge. Many video games do this, or are accused of doing this.)<br />
<br />
The most obtrusive part is the rules for the keywords and model selection (due to card assignments).<br />
<br />
These rules rate 3 out of 5 in Unobtrusiveness.<br />
<br />
<b>Heads Up</b> – are the rules playable without frequent reference to a quick reference sheet?<br />
<br />
Maybe as you use <i>HTAI</i> more the keywords become second nature, so referring to the rules cards doesn't become necessary. But for me I often double-checked the rules card to ensure I could attack after a move, or whether I was supposed to seek cover or not. Ironically, the rule could easily have been printed in full in the Orders section of the card, so it was not really necessary creating a separate, referenced rule.<br />
<br />
Again, the second major hassle was looking up a card and figuring out which model was to act. Unless you use card markers or have some other form of identifier on your models and you create a lookup table, this will be the most tedious part of the game. Because model selection is key to answering one of the two critical questions that a solo system has to answer, I cannot ignore this aspect of <i>HTAI</i>.<br />
<br />
These rules rate 3 out of 5 in Heads Up.<br />
<br />
<b>Appropriately Flavored</b> – do the rules 'feel' like they represent the period or genre being played?<br />
<br />
<i>HTAI</i> is not intended to represent any period or genre, nor is it supposed to add flavor.<br />
<br />
These rules are not rated in Appropriately Flavored.<br />
<br />
<b>Scalable</b> – can the rules be scaled up or down – in terms of figures or number of units played – from a 'normal' game?<br />
<br />
Here, I am changing the definition of the rating a bit. I want to address whether <i>HTAI</i> can be used for larger unit sizes or not. Currently<i>, HTAI</i> is intended to represent the orders in a skirmish game where each unit is a single model. Could it be used to represent the orders of a squad? A company? A battalion? etc.<br />
<br />
The farther you move away from the core use – a single figure or model – the more 'interpretation' you are going to have to do with the key words on the card. How does a battalion's actions differ when <i>Defensive: 1D6 move into cover</i> is drawn as opposed to <i>Hostile: 1D6</i>, especially when there is no cover nearby? What if there is cover, but moving into it would disorder the unit? I could easily see where a 'positive' order for a skirmish-level game might act as a 'negative' order for massed combat.<br />
<br />
In terms of scaling for using more figures or models, the key limiting factor is that there are only 16 card assignments for determining which model acts next. You would have to group models in order to fit into 16 slots and then draw another card to determine which model in the group would act. At that point it would simply be easier to develop your own system for model selection. Also, if you do not like the differing probabilities of cards appearing you would need to develop your own system.<br />
<br />
Given the amount of interpretation that would be required to accommodate other scales, I would have to rate it low.<br />
<br />
These rules rate 2 out of 5 in Scalable.<br />
<br />
<b>Lacks Fiddly Geometry</b> – do the rules require fiddly measurements or angles?<br />
<br />
<i>HTAI</i> adds no elements of measurement or line of sight, etc.<br />
<br />
These rules are not rated in Fiddly Geometry.<br />
<br />
<b>Tournament Tight™ Rules</b> – are the rules clear and comprehensive, or do the players need to 'fill in the blanks'?<br />
<br />
The whole point of <i>HTAI</i> is to game solo, so these would never be used in a tournament. More to the point, rules disagreements largely don't occur if you are playing solo. Nonetheless, what this rating really refers to is ambiguity in the rules. How much do you have to interpret? Actually, a lot less than I expected, but obviously, for a product that is supposed to cover 'any' skirmish scenario it is going to have to have some interpretation left up to the player.<br />
<br />
These rules rate 3 out of 5 in Tournament Tight™ Rules.<br />
<br />
<b>Solo Suitability</b> – do the rules have elements conducive to solo play?<br />
<br />
There are no hidden elements to the game so that alone usually grants the rules high solitaire suitability. Having a mechanism to randomize how a model acts is usually an element that solo gamers inject into other rules, sometimes with disastrous results, so having that mechanism built in and accounted for is just icing on the cake. Because it also has a mechanism for determining which model acts next, it is given a perfect rating.<br />
<br />
These rules rate 5 out of 5 in Solo Suitability.<br />
<br />
<b>Component Quality</b> – are the components provided made with quality?<br />
<br />
This is a new rating, meant primarily for board games and books, which addresses the quality of the physical components.<br />
<br />
First, there are three options when ordering this product: have the cards and rules printed; have the cards and rules printed and receive a PDF of the cards and rules; or receive a PDF of the cards and rules. I went with the first so really most of this rating is about the quality of the cards from War-game Vault.<br />
<br />
The cards are nice and glossy, but a little thin. Thin cards seem to 'clump' together when shuffling and they usually do not spring back to shape as quickly.<br />
<br />
There are several misspellings in the text of the cards and rules, indicating it needs a better editor. (Like my blog.)<br />
<br />
These rules rate 3 out of 5 in Component Quality.<br />
<h3>
Summary</h3>
I can't say it enough, but solo systems are not fully fleshed out unless they answer two questions: which model acts next and what do they do when it is their time to act. <i>HTAI</i> does a really good job of that, but there are some ideas that you have to accept, one of which is that some figures will have a higher probability of acting than others. Because that math is burned into the cards, you really cannot change that idea easily. Maybe that is why getting the PDF is such a good idea. With some editing software it would be relatively easy to make the probability of card selection equal or allow for more models than just 16. But, you would have to print the cards out yourself.<br />
<br />
Would I use these cards again? Yes. Would I use them to play solo with other unit scales? Probably not, but I would likely take the ideas and build upon them.<br />
<br />
Recommended.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-67731389101003233972018-12-19T19:40:00.002-07:002018-12-19T19:40:36.099-07:00Hostile Tactical A.I. Review – Part 1<a href="https://www.wargamevault.com/product/216959/Hostile-Tactical-AI?term=hostile+tactic&test_epoch=0" target="_blank"><i>Hostile Tactical A.I.</i></a> (<i>HTAI</i>) is an solo gaming system to order enemy units around in skirmish miniature wargames, so you may play solo or co-op against the enemy. These are not intended as a complete set of rules, but rather a game mechanic that you need to graft onto whatever skirmish rules system you are using.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>In general I do not like to give away too much information in my reviews, especially about game probabilities, but given that so much information is in the cards and not the rules, I feel like I am not cheating the author in talking a little more about the math behind this system. Let me know if you think I let too many cats out of the bag.</i></blockquote>
<h3>
Concept</h3>
The system works through a deck of 72 cards each of which is used to tell you where enemy models are to go and what they are to do. This is one of the harder problems to solve when playing solo. If you are using rules where not every model gets to act every turn the second problem to solve is which units get to act. <i>HTAI</i> gives you mechanics to solve that question also.<br />
<br />
Included with the deck of 72 cards are three, double-sided rules cards, and three "shard" cards.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Game Cards</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WWPyr4MgTIc/XBrviqHTvqI/AAAAAAAAFmc/M4wAcdZSgL8O0JDfgFpqfEzIFUMHFqnFACLcBGAs/s1600/sample-cards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="524" data-original-width="1200" height="276" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WWPyr4MgTIc/XBrviqHTvqI/AAAAAAAAFmc/M4wAcdZSgL8O0JDfgFpqfEzIFUMHFqnFACLcBGAs/s640/sample-cards.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The above image shows some sample cards. At the top left is a Reaction Order.<br />
<br />
On the right of the top (blue) section is the symbol for a standard playing card, Jack, Queen, King, or Ace, in any of the four suits. This is used in conjunction with markers on the table of with the symbol assigned to a model.<br />
<br />
The middle (white) section contains two orders. Which you use is determined based on a general situation of the model the card is drawn for; whether the model sees an enemy unit (Attack) or not (Patrol). The order text indicates anything special you might do, and how aggressively you do it (1D6 or 2D6).<br />
<br />
The bottom (black) section has a compass direction on the left, a bit of text in the center describing an enemy's state or position, and a red and white die on the right. If you need 1D6 you use the red die and if you need 2D6 you add the red and white dice together.<br />
<br />
As you can see, it is pretty basic, and every probability is baked into the cards.<br />
<h3>
Using the Game Cards</h3>
<div>
There is a <a href="https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/158875/hostile-ai-tutorial-including-shards" target="_blank">tutorial PDF on BoardgameGeek</a> that provides some examples of play. It is still very high level, but it gives you a better understanding of how to use them. Basically, once you have determined which model is to move you draw a card and determine its order based on whether it is in Attack or Patrol mode. Once the order is determined, generally you will need to determine which enemy it is taking that action against. You draw another card and look at the black section and either use the compass or the descriptor to determine the direction of any move. Finally, the original order determines whether the move is 1D6 or 2D6, so you draw a third card to determine the distance, indicated on the dice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At times you will see an asterisk (*) on the card in the section you are using. This indicates that you should draw another card first, referring to the Reaction section. That card draw may in turn require more cards be drawn, which may in turn trigger more reactions. Just go with it.</div>
<h3>
Shards</h3>
<div>
No, we are not talking about a database partition here. The author uses the term "shard" to refer to little markers placed on the table to represent a variety of things, such as objectives, potential locations for enemies, or points of interest. Really, whatever is on the board that you want to randomize. As there are sixteen different shards, that is you maximum range of possibilities. Again, these symbols are on the cards, in the top right corner, so you can use card draws to add a randomizer.</div>
<h3>
Selecting a Model</h3>
<div>
As I said earlier, the two largest issues to solve for solo games are: which model (unit) acts next, and what does that model (unit) do? <i>HTAI</i> jumps straight into solving the second issue (what does that model do), but it only lightly touches upon the first.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If the number of models that the automated side has numbers 16 or less, it should be pretty easy to simply assign one of the shards to it, then use the deck draw to first determine which model acts, then follow the process above. If the model count is too high then you could assign shards to groups of models, draw a card to determine the group, assign shards to the models in the group, then draw another card to determine the specific model.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another possibility is to use the compass on a drawn card to see which area of board will act, then using additional cards to hone in on the model.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In essence, the exact method is up to you, including not randomizing the choice at all.</div>
<h3>
Toolkit Not a Game</h3>
<div>
The important thing to recognize is that <i>HTAI</i> is a toolkit that you have to integrate into the specific set of skirmish rules you are using in order for the cards to make sense. Although there are some specifics on the cards that seem to imply a game rule, such as the distance moved (indicated by the order and the dice), these two need to be "translated" into whatever rules you are using in order for it all to make sense.</div>
<h2>
Test Game</h2>
<div>
Before I give my rating on <i>HTAI</i> I want to use them in at least one game and see if what it looks like on paper matches what happens on the table. So for my test game I am going to use <i>HTAI</i> with <i>One-Hour Skirmish Wargames</i> (<i>OHSW</i>), which I recently reviewed on <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">my other blog</a>. (<a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2018/12/one-hour-skirmish-wargames-review-part-1.html" target="_blank">Part One</a>, <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2018/12/one-hour-skirmish-wargames-review-part-2.html" target="_blank">Part Two</a>, <a href="https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2018/12/one-hour-skirmish-wargames-follow-up.html" target="_blank">Follow-Up</a>) It might help to read at least Part One in order to understand the <i>OHSW</i> rules as essentially I will be integrating <i>HTAI</i> and <i>OHSW</i> together.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In my test game I am going to be running the same scenario run in Part One and Part Two. I will be making one modification to the scenario, which should have no bearing here, regarding the firing rate of gunpowder-era weapons. I will not write out the entire game as I typically do, but focus in detail on how I translate the cards in <i>HTAI</i> into actions for the British side in <i>OHSW</i>.<br />
<h3>
Integration Notes</h3>
</div>
<div>
Given that the British have fewer than 16 models, I will assign a different shard to each model. This will allow me to draw a <i>HTAI</i> card at the start of each British Action Phase to determine which model will take action. Then based on the orders in <i>HTAI</i>, it will consume a certain number of <i>OHSW</i> action points (AP). If there are points remaining I would then draw an additional <i>HTAI</i> card to determine the next British model to act (it cannot be one of the models that have already acted in that Action Phase). As casualties mount, I will more than likely have to draw multiple cards before I get a shard designating a model still in the game, but that is just a guess.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Given the ground scale of <i>OHSW</i> I will have all British models in Attack mode rather than Patrol mode. This will save me from having to consider who is in and out of line of sight, who that is out of sight has and has not fired, how much noise has been generated, etc. all of which <i>HTAI</i> seemingly takes into account. Too much detail too early on. So, the position designations (text in the center of the black section of the card) will be used to see which model the British model attacks. (An asterisk in the compass will be applied to the position designation.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Movement distances in <i>OHSW</i> are fixed. Infantry move 6" per move action. I could use the dice roll to simulate a model's hesitancy in moving, but that implies a morale and/or terrain difficulty aspect that takes no other factors into account. I am not sure I like that, especially as the French (player) side would not be bound by that limitation. However, <i>OHSW</i> does have the concept of multiple moves being allowed a model, assuming it has enough action points to complete them. If a 1D6 is indicated, I could allow that to refer to that figure being allowed a maximum of one Move action. The rationale being that even if you rolled a maximum of '6', that is still only a single Move. However, if 2D6 is indicated, if the player draws a '7' or better, this allows for two Move actions to be performed by the model, assuming the British has the necessary action points remaining.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Generally speaking, the Attack Order contains a modifier, indicating the aggressiveness of the order. This will be followed as accurately as possible, but until I play through all of the options, I won't know if I have to fudge a bit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Many of the order indicate 'objectives'. The intent is to use shards to indicate objectives, so that a card draw can determine which way a model moves, but there is only one physical objective for the British in this scenario, so if the objective is mentioned, it means the cannon in the center of the board.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well that should cover it for now. The next post will go into playing the game using <i>HTAI</i> as the 'artificial intelligence' for the British player in a scenario using the <i>OHSW</i> rules.</div>
Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-4919964687905297682016-05-18T23:01:00.001-07:002016-05-18T23:01:37.921-07:00Mythic and Miniature GamingBack in September of 2006 I wrote a couple of posts on a Yahoo forum about using <a href="http://www.mythic.wordpr.com/page14/page1/page1.html" target="_blank"><i>Mythic Role-Playing</i></a> as a means of creating scenarios and fighting miniatures battles solo. The idea was to use <i>Mythic</i> to create a narrative and help the player make decisions for the opposition <u>and</u> to represent the fog of war. Although <i>Mythic</i> contains a combat system, I still wanted to use my traditional miniatures rules. With that in mind I wrote up and posted two gaming sessions using <i>Mythic</i> and Two Hour Wargames' <i>Black Powder Battles</i>. Rather than linking to the original forum thread – which requires you to join that Yahoo forum, even to read posts – I have reproduced them here.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>On the Wallachian Frontier, 1750's</b><br />
(A Solo Skirmish using the <i>Black Powder Battles</i> and <i>Mythic</i> rules)<br />
<br />
This skirmish occurs roughly 75 km NW of Bucharest in what would be the XVI Grenzer Regimental area (1st Wallach). The forces available are, on the Slavic (Austro-Hungarian) side: four mounted Pandurs (irregular frontier troops) and four frontier Hussars; on the Wallachian (Ottoman Turk) side: eight Boyars on foot and four mounted.<br />
<br />
The initial idea for this scenario was to have two Pandur scouts detect a Boyar raiding party encamped. The mounted Boyars would be foraging (and thus the scouts would not know of their presence), while the foot were busy making camp. The scouts would then retreat and give the alarm. Four Pandurs would then return and make a surprise attack on the camp. Once the shooting started, it would be a race between both sides remaining mounted troops to see which side<br />
reinforced the skirmish first.<br />
<br />
Because I decided to use <i>Mythic</i> as a way of randomizing events, I decided to try and use the rules they way they were intended. As <i>Mythic</i> is mainly geared towards adding a cinematic storyline to solo (or GM-less) role-playing games, it breaks the story down into segments, called "scenes". So, looking at the rules and the storyline I was attempting to recreate, I can see that I jumped the gun a<br />
little. The scenes defined are:<br />
<br />
1. The Pandurs are patrolling the frontier where the Boyars are camped.<br />
2. Assuming the Pandurs are successful in spotting the Boyars, they ride off to raise the alarm.<br />
3. The Pandurs meet with other patrolling Pandurs. One continues on to the fort in order to raise the alarm while the remainder head for the Boyar camp.<br />
4. Something compells the Pandurs to attack the Boyar camp before reinforcements arrive.<br />
5. Once the shooting starts, both sides mounted reinforcements head towards the sound of the guns. Which one will make it first?<br />
<br />
Good storyline, but <i>Mythic</i> wants to throw in some random elements here and there to throw a surprise your way every so often. So, you start by coming up with an "adventure setup", or an interesting concept. My setup is that the Pandurs are patrolling the area, looking for Turkish raiders and bandits, while the Boyars, as the raiders, are looking to loot a village. They have made a march across the frontier and are starting to encamp, with the intention of starting off the next morning, making an early raid, then force-marching back across the border.<br />
<br />
The next step is to make a list of all of the characters who may become involved in the adventure.<br />
<br />
<u>Slavs</u><br />
Pandur Scout Patrol 1<br />
Pandur Scout Patrol 2<br />
Hussars from Fort<br />
<br />
<u>Wallachians</u><br />
Foot Boyars encamped<br />
Mounted Boyars foraging<br />
<br />
Next, the Chaos Factor is recorded (it starts at '5'). This may rise or fall as the various scenes are played out.<br />
<br />
Next, the threads of the storyline are listed out:<br />
<br />
1. The Slavs scout the frontier to detect and stop any enemy raiders or bandits.<br />
2. The Wallachians are raiding a Slav frontier village.<br />
<br />
Okay! Now it is time to setup the first scene.<br />
<br />
<i>[Scene 1]</i><br />
<br />
The Slavs are approaching the Wallachian camp... Before playing the scene, however, you check to see if the scene has been modified (surprise, surprise). Roll 1D10 and if you roll the Chaos factor (5)<br />
or less, the scene is modified.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 8<br />
<br />
The scene has now been determined; both sides are in the vicinity of one another, so its time to start playing by asking questions and rolling on the Fate Chart.<br />
<br />
Do the Slavs spot the Wallachians first? I would rate this as High versus Below Average (i.e. the Slavs have a high chance because this is why they are out there -- to find and investigate suspicious<br />
activity -- and the Wallachians have a lower chance of spotting first as they are setting up camp and thus are distracted and have fewer sentries), so the base chance is 85% for 'Yes' and 16% for an 'Exceptional Yes'.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 13<br />
<br />
The Slavs have spotted the Wallachians and not been spotted themselves.<br />
<br />
<i>Black Powder Battles</i> uses dice to handle how the troops react to certain situations; spotting the enemy for the first time is one of those situations. Rather than automatically assuming that the scouts<br />
will do the right thing (holding their fire, observing the enemy, then returning unseen to report), you have to check to see what they do. First, however, we need to start setting up for a potential battle.<br />
<br />
Do the Pandurs see all eight Boyars? Here I think that the chance would be about average, as the Boyars are moving about and their might be a sentry out of sight that they don't notice, but given their previous exceptional success, I give them a 65% chance.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 55<br />
<br />
Whenever you roll on the Fate Chart and the number is a doubles AND the digit is equal to or lower than the current Chaos rating a Random Event occurs. First roll on the Event Focus table to see what aspect of the adventure the event is applied to.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 31<br />
<br />
This is a thread-related event. As we have two open threads, roll to see which (even: Slav; odd: Wallachian).<br />
<br />
Rolls => 6<br />
<br />
Now you roll on the Event Meaning table.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 167: "A wise counselor"<br />
<br />
I am interpreting this event as the Pandurs automatically passing the "In Sight" check and remaining hidden without firing.<br />
<br />
So, the scouts note that there are eight raiders on foot and, realizing that they don't have enough force to handle these raiders (and that they need to raise the alarm, as there may be other raiding parties about), they slip away and ride off.<br />
<br />
<i>[End of Scene 1]</i><br />
<br />
No characters or threads are added or removed from the lists, but the Chaos Factor is lowered to '4' as the scene was "controlled and calm."<br />
<br />
The last task is to dole out Favor Points for exceptional accomplishments. Nothing here, as it was all pretty cut and dried.<br />
<br />
<i>[Scene 2]</i><br />
<br />
The Slavs have successfully spotted the enemy, counted their numbers, then slipped away. On the way back to the fort the first Slav scout patrol meets up with a second, larger Slav scout patrol.<br />
<br />
Check to see if the scene is modified.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 1: yes<br />
<br />
As the roll is in the lower half (1 or 2 versus a 3 or 4), it is an altered scene as opposed to an interrupt scene.<br />
<br />
Altering a scene requires that you decide the most logical alteration, then ask a question and access the Fate Chart to determine if that is indeed the correct alteration. If not, keep asking the next most logical questions until the answer comes up 'yes'.<br />
<br />
In this scene, the most logical alteration is that the scouts fail to meet up with the other scouting party.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 89: no<br />
<br />
Is it that the scouting party is not as large as expected?<br />
<br />
Rolls => 82: no<br />
<br />
Did we actually meet up with the enemy mounted Boyars?<br />
<br />
Rolls => 33: yes<br />
<br />
Note also that this is again doubles, and that the digit ('3') is less than the current Chaos Factor, so a random event has occurred. Looking at the Event Focus and Event Meanings tables:<br />
<br />
Rolls => 80: neutral event<br />
Rolls => 12: Physical and emotional violation<br />
<br />
The first thing that springs to mind is that the scouts come upon the other scouts, who are dead from the hands of the Boyars, but this would not be a neutral event. So, who are the neutrals? The local,<br />
non-combatant villagers are. So, the Boyars came upon some local villagers and are now in the process of terrorizing them when the Slavs burst onto the scene.<br />
<br />
Do the Pandurs surprise the Boyars?<br />
<br />
Rolls => 71: no<br />
<br />
Do the Pandurs stumble onto the scene without noticing the Boyars?<br />
<br />
Rolls => 98: exceptional no<br />
<br />
Are all four of the Boyars present? (The previous 'exceptional no' weights the question in favor of a 'no'.)<br />
<br />
Rolls => 3: exceptional yes<br />
<br />
So, the Pandurs burst in on the scene of two Boyars terrorizing a woman and two children. A man is dead, on the ground. Unbeknownst to the Pandurs, there are two more Boyars out of sight, but who can see them (they are not considered "hidden"). The Pandurs have an idea that there are more, however.<br />
<br />
Time to start a battle!<br />
<br />
The two Boyars out of sight are dismounted and in the family's hut (their horses are outside near the door and can be seen by the Pandurs). The woman and children are in the yard, on their knees, crying. The two mounted Boyars are in front of the hut and in sight of the Pandurs. (This is all dictated by the terrain board I am using, the location of the hut, and the random roll I made to determine which direction the Pandurs came from.)<br />
<br />
<u>Turn 0</u><br />
The Pandurs are considered to have moved into sight, thus the Boyars take the 'In Sight' checks.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 2 and 5<br />
<br />
As all of the Boyars are REP 4, this is 1 pass, resulting in stationary figures firing. However, the Pandurs are greater than 12" away (the range of a carbine), so they do not fire.<br />
<br />
<u>Turn 1</u><br />
Each side rolls 1D6.<br />
<br />
Pandurs Roll => 5: fail activation<br />
Boyars Roll => 2: activate<br />
<br />
Before the Boyars activate the Pandurs must continue movement (they were going the base 8").<br />
<br />
Boyar 1 exits the hut and mounts his horse. This causes an 'In Sight' check for the Pandurs.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 3 and 6: 1 pass, moving figures may not fire<br />
<br />
Boyar 2 also exits the hut and mounts his horse, again causing an 'In Sight' check.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 3 and 4: 2 passes, moving figures may fire<br />
<br />
Both Pandurs fire at the Boyar attempting to mount his horse.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 2 and 6: one miss and one hit; both Pandurs' carbines are unloaded (they each have a pistol, however)<br />
Rolls => 6: target knocked down and must roll for recovery next turn<br />
<br />
Boyar 3 decides to charge the closest Pandur, requiring a 'Wanting to Charge' check.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 2 and 5: 1 pass; will charge<br />
<br />
The Pandur makes a 'Being Charged' check.<br />
<br />
Rolls => 4 and 6; prepares for melee<br />
<br />
The Pandur draws his sabre. Rolling for melee:<br />
<br />
Pandur Rolls => 2, 4, and 6 (cavalry receives an extra die): 2 passes<br />
Boyar Rolls => 1, 1, and 2: 3 passes<br />
Roll for Damage => 6: knocked off of horse<br />
Roll again for Damage => 6: knocked to ground, roll for Recovery next Active turn<br />
<br />
The Pandur's horse continues on without his rider (it will stop a short distance away) and the Boyar continues to ride past.<br />
<br />
The last Boyar activates and he also charges (the remaining mounted Pandur).<br />
<br />
Boyar Rolls => 4 and 5: 1 pass; charges<br />
Pandur Rolls => 1 and 2: 2 passes; those that can will fire and prepare for melee<br />
<br />
The Slav pulls his pistol...<br />
<br />
Rolls => 5: hits<br />
Rolls => 4: Boyar knocked off of horse<br />
Rolls => 6: Boyar knocked to the ground, roll for Recovery next Active turn<br />
<br />
The turn ends with two Boyars knocked to the ground, one Pandur knocked to the ground, and one Boyar and one Pandur still mounted (although both have ridden past one another and are facing opposite directions).<br />
<br />
<i>Intermission</i><br />
<br />
It has suddenly occurred to me that I have been "cheating" to a certain extent. The goal was not to figure out how to use <i>Mythic</i> to create an interesting scenario, but how to use <i>Mythic</i> to help figure<br />
out how the troops should react. <i>Black Powder Battles</i> does an excellent job of that for certain situations, but at some point you, the player, have to make a decision for both sides.<br />
<br />
For example, when the Boyars were activated, in all cases I chose their actions, not the dice. I chose what I felt was the most logical course of action, given that they outnumbered the Pandurs. But, that<br />
was a major assumption on my part. I knew that the Boyars outnumbered them, but did they?<br />
<br />
It is time to integrating <i>Mythic</i> more into the game.<br />
<br />
The last turn ended with two Boyars knocked to the ground, one Pandur knocked to the ground, and one Boyar and one Pandur still mounted (although both have ridden past one another and are facing opposite directions).<br />
<br />
<u>Turn 2</u><br />
To start, we need to roll initiative. Both sides activate, but the Pandurs activate first.<br />
<br />
So, the Boyar that charged last turn must move while inactive. He goes 4" forward and wheels his horse back around to face the Pandurs.<br />
<br />
Now, on to using <i>Mythic</i> to help determine each side's actions (I am going to try and use it for playing out both sides).<br />
<br />
The main goal of the Pandurs, at this point, is to raise the alarm. The first question is: how close is the horse of the dismounted Pandur? Is it close? Yes. Does the Pandur recover from being knocked to the ground? (This used <i>Black Powder Battles</i> for resolution.) Yes. The dismounted Pandur gets up and mounts his horse.<br />
<br />
That leaves the second Pandur free to leave the scene of battle and go get help (if that makes sense). First off, is this battle occuring close to the Boyar camp (within earshot)? No. Is the battle occurring<br />
close to the Pandur camp (unlikely)? No. Will the Pandur (who still has to act – #2) leave his companion behind? No. Will the Pandur (#2) attack the Boyar to their rear in order to clear a path to the rear? Yes.<br />
<br />
The Pandur charges the Boyar, passing on the left. I am giving the Pandur +1D6 in melee for momentum (the Boyar had stopped and wheeled around). Both score 0 passes. The Pandur passes and continues on (but still barely on the board).<br />
<br />
Now it is the Boyars turn to activate. First, all moving Pandurs continue on. Will Pandur #2 stop and wheel? Yes.<br />
<br />
Is the Boyar that was attempting to mount his horse still near his<br />
horse? No, The shot which knocked him down must have scared it off.<br />
He is able to get up successfully, so he looks for the horse. Rolling<br />
for the horse's direction, the horse ran left around the house. Is<br />
the horse still in sight? No. Did the Boyar see where the horse went<br />
while he was down? No. The Boyar's turn is over.<br />
<br />
The next Boyar on the ground gets up and recovers (everyone's powder must have been wet, because no one is getting hurt!). As he was shot off of his horse, he also has a chance of his horse running away. Is his horse still close by? Exceptional yes. He gets up and quickly mounts his horse.<br />
<br />
The Boyar near the hut acts. Should he charge the Pandur whose back is to him? Yes. He passes his Attempting to Charge check. As he is charging the rear of an opponent, the Pandur gets a Surprise Check, which he passes twice, so the Pandur turns to face the Boyar and takes a Being Charged Check at -1, which he passes once (so he prepares for melee). The Pandur suddenly whips around and the Boyar falls to the ground, out of the fight, with a sabre cut to the head (the Boyar had three dice in melee with the Pandur only having two and he still lost).<br />
<br />
The final Boyar is facing the Pandur that just cut down the other Boyar. To his back is the Pandur farthest from the hut that just attacked (and missed) him. Does he retreat? Exceptional yes. The Boyar rides to the left of the hut accelerating to a fast speed (16").<br />
<br />
<i>[End of turn]</i><br />
<br />
Hmmm. Interesting. Whoever activates first have the first opportunity to retreat. Who will it be? What will happen next?<br />
<br />
<i>[Recording of Game Ends]</i></blockquote>
These two posts generated a little discussion. The forum was mostly dedicated to using <i>Mythic</i> for role-playing, so there was some interest in using it for traditional wargames, but not much.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>Q: First off, I was enjoying the story (err...log). It got me into one of </b><b>those reading moods where you see the scenes playing out in your head </b><b>like you were watching a TV screen.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>You, the player, were the Slavs right? I take that from your almost </b><b>last big paragraph. I enjoyed how you incorporated RPG aspect to get to </b><b>the point of actually starting a skirmish. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>I have no experience in playing skirmish or war games with Mythic so I </b><b>can not be much help. You said you chose actions for the Boyars based </b><b>on the most logical. You probably could have asked <i>Mythic</i> a question </b><b>about that logical choice to see if the Boyars actually "did the most </b><br />
<b>logical". Also, when setting up a scene you probably should have a goal </b><b>stated so you know when the scene ends (whether you meet that goal may </b><b>or may not happen though). </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>How much more time, using <i>Mythic</i>, did it take compared to just using </b><b>the <i>Black Powder Battles</i> rules alone? Was this way more or less fun?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
A: Yes, "log" is accurate. It was intended to show my thought processes and how I interpreted the rolls.<br />
<br />
I was playing the Slavs, but sometimes it might be interesting to not "play" either side; to try and eliminate bias and simply let the narrative go where it might.<br />
<br />
Using <i>Mythic</i> to get to the start of the skirmish – to set the scene – was the most surprising aspect of the game so far. As you can see, I sort of had the scenario that I was to play all set in my mind, then I decided to develop a back-story that got me to the starting point of the scenario. But instead, I decided to play out the back-story and see if <i>Mythic</i> could throw me a curve ball in my<br />
nice and tidy little scenario. As it turned out, the curve ball wasn't to the scenario, but that I<br />
ended up playing a completely different scenario.<br />
<br />
I can already see some of the ramifications of this scene. For example:<br />
<br />
* If the Slavs win and no Boyars are alive, the Boyars at the camp might be on alert if the others don't come back within a certain amount of time.<br />
<br />
* If the Slavs win and some Boyars do escape, the camp will definitely be on alert when the main Slav attack comes.<br />
<br />
* If the Slavs lose and none escape, the scenario will definitely shift towards the Boyars making a raid on a village and seeing if Slav can rescue the villagers in time.<br />
<br />
And who knows how many other possibilities.<br />
<br />
We'll see how much longer using <i>Mythic</i> takes. As I was not using <i>Mythic</i> with <i>Black Powder Battles</i> [in the first part], but rather before it, it only took as much time as any <i>Mythic</i> adventure. I changed that in the second part.<br />
<br />
Of course, noting every last little detail and explaining the rationale in my head took far more time than simply playing would. I was only able to setup the game and run a single turn in two hours. One-half of that time was simply getting to the point where I had a skirmish to fight.<br />
<br />
I should be able to fight and document a turn or so per night.<br />
<br />
Changing from a mindset of "let's envision a scenario" to "let envision a general concept and see where <i>Mythic</i> takes us" was very exciting. This changes the session from a wargame to a narrative<br />
storyline in which combat is a central part. You are changing what you are doing by wrapping a context around the battle, which has always been my goal in wargaming.<br />
<br />
For example, the Slavs really must play more cautiously. Their goal should not so much be to wipe out the Boyards at the hut (although this would be great); they have a larger mission here: to raise the<br />
alarm.<br />
<br />
In a normal skirmish, the loss of the two scouts is sort of an "oh well", but losing this fight means the next one will put that side at a disadvantage.<br />
<br />
In wargaming, this is playing a series of connected scenarios. The effects of one game affect what will be played in the next game. I have played a few and usually they connections between scenarios are tenuous at best, with the effects carried over very abstract (i.e. "you have 10% fewer points to buy your forces with this game").<br />
<br />
<b>Q: When you're asking these tactical questions what difficulty and </b><b>acting ranks are you using? Average? I purchased <i>Mythic</i>, online the </b><b>other day and have yet to understand how the Fate Chart works. I </b><b>think I'm getting there but... It does seem to me that you can </b><b>greatly influence the yes/no answer, if you want to.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Ok here goes my little test: My squad is moving along through a </b><b>field toward a bombed out village. As acting squad leader I ask the </b><b>question; Do I see any enemy activity near the first village house? </b><b>Acting Rank is REP 5 which I equate to High. Difficulty Rank is </b><b>Average. roll = 58% YES! I roll a 1d6 to see how many enemy </b><b>soldiers are present, roll = 2. Is it a machinegun team? AR = Above </b><b>Average; DR = High (because of the open area which would have a high </b><br />
<b>likelihood of a MMG covering the approach). Roll = 93 exceptional </b><b>NO! So with that result I am logically going to say they only have </b><b>pistols and grenades. Commence combat rounds using <i>NUTS</i> roll for IN </b><b>SIGHT. During the ensuing combat I take 1 enemy soldier Out of Fight </b><b>and lose none of mine. The enemy having suffered 50% (1 of 2) </b><b>casualties I ask; Does the remaining enemy soldier stay and continue </b><b>the fight against my squad? AR=Low DR=Above Average; Roll = 16 NO! </b><b>The enemy soldier is seen running away! End of scene 1. Does this </b><br />
<b>sound correct?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
A: The difficulty and acting ranks varied, but most are average versus the current Chaos Factor (4). In part two I shortened the write-up for this forum by taking out all of the rolls and the odds.<br />
<br />
For example, The odds for being within earshot of the Pandur camp was very low as that would have required the Boyars to stray very far afield of their encampment. Sometimes I only ask the question just to see if I'll get a random event (doubles with numbers lower than or equal to the Chaos Factor), which can throw me a curve ball.<br />
<br />
You can ask questions that seem pretty obvious as to the answer (high %age of success) or outrageously oddball questions (low %age of success). Some questions should simply not be asked and logic should prevail. But, especially where it is an "odds question" or you are dealing with a person's emotions or choice of actions, you should go to the Fate Chart.<br />
<br />
Is your first question (do I see enemy activity near the first village house) an odds question or a skills question? For example, if you have already determined that there are enemy in the village and that<br />
it is simply a matter of spotting them, then it is a skills question (although I question using the squad leader's ability as opposed to the scout/point man's ability). Also, if the enemy are "hidden" (per<br />
THW's definition), you would not have a chance of spotting at all.<br />
<br />
If, however, you are asking <b>if</b> there are enemy, that is an odds question and the squad leaders rank would not come into play. It is simply logic which dictates the odds, then the dice are used to<br />
determine success.<br />
<br />
Why 1D6 for the number of enemies? Why not ask a question about whether only one squad is<br />
present in the village? See, now you have to ask further questions about where the rest of the squad/platoon/company is (after all, the odds that only two enemy are present in the whole village would be pretty low, unless they are deserters or just happen to be in the village and the village is undefended). IMO, of course. That's what makes it your story versus mine.<br />
<br />
I like rolling in Mythic to determine the enemy's actions, especially in a morale situation.<br />
<br />
I think you can use <i>Mythic</i> as little or as much as you like. The more you use it, the more unexpected the game will be. The game will still be dictated by logic (after all, you are supposed to ask the most<br />
logical questions first), but sometimes those answers keep coming up "no" until you start asking the improbable. Also, interpreting the Random Events [which are oriented towards a fantasy role-playing theme] is a bit of a hoot.</blockquote>
I realize that some of this is not so useful if you are not familiar with <i>Mythic</i> or <i>Black Powder Battles</i>, but hopefully you can see the development of a narrative story for your battles and campaigns ad thus you might explore purchasing and utilizing <i>Mythic</i> with your favorite miniatures rules.<br />
<br />Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-18714547995401527992013-04-19T20:11:00.002-07:002013-04-19T20:11:47.272-07:00The Impact of the Turn Sequence of Solo WargamingLet me start off by saying this article is not about what is and is not true, but rather trying to figure out the answer by walking through my thought process and seeing where others fall in their thinking.<br />
<br />
Let me start by saying that I think the turn sequence of a game has a large impact on how that game "feels" to the players. It changes the way they think and how they approach tactics, or in this case, how to win the game. I also think that some game mechanics get "magnified" when the game is played solo, rather than player versus player. A simple example is where a game has an auction component, or uses hidden information. These mechanics suddenly present a much greater problem for the solo player and thus trying to work around them often significantly alters the feel of the game. Imagine trying to resolve how you would deal with a bidding mechanic in your solo games. Most of you probably already deal with hidden information mechanics, such as maintaining a hand of cards. If you game solo by "playing the best of your ability for both sides", these games tend to fall flat because this important aspect of the game – bidding hard for an advantage or springing a surprise card play – fades away now that the player has perfect knowledge of not just his own side, but the "other" side too.<br />
<br />
But, I am not talking about this game mechanics, I am talking about the lowly, ever-present<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup> mechanic of the turn sequence, and how it impacts not only gaming, but in particular, how I think it impacts solo gaming.<br />
<br />
The standard turn sequence is:<br />
<ol>
<li>I go</li>
<li>You go</li>
</ol>
Both <i>Chess</i> and <i>Checkers</i> are that way, as are a number of card games. Each person takes an action in turn before moving on to the next player. In miniatures gaming, it typically translates as:<br />
<ol>
<li>Player A Moves</li>
<li>Player A Fires</li>
<li>Player A and B Melees</li>
<li>Player B Moves</li>
<li>Player B Fires</li>
<li>Player B and A Melees</li>
</ol>
Over time variations are added – breaking out the charge, adding defensive fire, adding morale checks after firing and melees, adding army morale checks, adding victory condition checks, and so on – but they still break down to I Go then You Go (or IGOUGO for short). If you have read enough of my blogs you know that I do not particularly favor this turn sequence (despite playing a lot of games that use <u>exactly</u> that sequence).<br />
<br />
Rather than go through Wally Simon's thought process on how to tweak the IGOUGO sequence into something better (you can buy the books and read it yourself) I want to examine how this turn sequence affects your thought process when solo gaming.<br />
<br />
If you were to use a turn sequence that identifies at random which side acts next, and that activation allows you to perform one action with a single unit, your mind thinks about what your options are differently than if you are alternating which side gets to do everything. With the former, you have to focus on which unit and action will provide the greatest return, as any action you do could affect the amount of damaged received when your opponent acts next. For example, you might shoot and eliminate a unit, thus denying your opponent the opportunity to shoot back when he next randomly receives the chance to take an action. Or you might run away with that unit, or heal it, making it less likely that it will be eliminated in the next attack against it.<br />
<br />
Although the player must still keep his overall plan in sight<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></sup>, he still needs to make value judgements on which action is the best, second best, and so on. More importantly, training ground precision and coordination between units cannot be counted on, as you have no control over the order of actions. And this is key, because IGOUGO typically produces thinking like:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>
"Okay, it is my turn, so Unit A will move around the building and fire on the flank of this enemy unit, while Unit B will charge in and assault them. Now moving fire from the 10 ten in Unit A should inflict three casualties …"</i></blockquote>
The point, however, is that it is exceptionally worse with solo gaming. I don't care who you are, if you are "playing to the best of your ability for each side" bias <u>will</u> creep in. Whether it is because you like the paint job of this side better, think that the other side should win because they did historically, or even just because the narrative seems to be heading in a particularly cool direction, bias for one side or another creeps in. And it usually does it in the form of you thinking that if you could do X on turn 1 and Y on turn 2, then really cool event Z will happen. It is that <u>planning ahead</u> that bites you in the rear. The very thing I have been saying a solo gamer needs – a battle plan, preferably written ahead of time – is what causes bias to creep in. And the longer the turn – more to the point, the more one side can do before the other can materially react – the more that bias will affect your game.<br />
<br />
I think that increasing interaction between the two side helps break the mind from favoring one side over the other. Rather, the solo gamer gets caught up in the action, the unfolding story as it were, rather than what one side could do to the other during its turn. By breaking up the turn sequence you add more interactivity between the sides. Your focus becomes the micro, rather than the macro. Each fight between two units becomes a battle within a battle.<br />
<br />
I am not saying that the solo gamers should not have a larger plan, for <u>both</u> sides, nor that altering a rule's turn sequence to make it more interactive will make your gaming easier, it won't. All I am saying is that, as solo gamers, we need to be aware that "playing the best of our ability for both sides" is not always good enough. You may enjoy the game, but if you game solo to practice for a tournament, for example, don't think for a second that you are able to play objectively.<br />
<br />
A while back I posted a bit about <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2012/12/messing-with-rules.html" target="_blank">messing with a game's rules</a>. I was not much of an advocate of that, but I think I am coming around. It depends upon what you mess with, I suppose. Take <i>Warhammer 40K</i> (<i>WH40K</i>) for example. Although I do not play (one non-solo game in probably ten years) I do enjoy some of the podcasts that discuss tactics in the game. (In particular, I find <i>The Second Founding</i> and <i>The 11th Company</i> podcasts particularly interesting.) They often have interviews with gamers that won this or that tournament with a particular army and the interviewer goes through their list and pelts the interviewees with questions about how they would handle this or that 'Badness of the Month'. It is interesting how many times their tactics refer to the Alpha Strike, which is essentially the ability to blow away the enemy in a single turn (usually once it gets to a certain range), and what they do in order to pull that off.<br />
<br />
As I have ranted many a time on my blogs, the Alpha Strike is a function of the game's turn sequence, alternating turns of Move-Fire-Assault phases between the sides. Imagine a simple change from that traditional turn sequence to the one used by <i>Bolt Action</i><sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span></sup> (<i>BA</i>) on the mind-set of the solo gamer. In the <i>WH40K</i> sequence the gamer focuses on co-ordinating his actions and generally has no concerns about the opposing player taking an action during his turn that might upset his plans<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">4</span></sup>. In the <i>BA</i> sequence, the player still will want to perform covering fire with Unit A and assault with Unit B, but now the sequence within the turn is not determined by strictly ordered Phases – Move then Fire then Assault – but by the order that the player activates units.<br />
<br />
Take that simple example: Unit A will provide covering fire against an enemy while Unit B moves in and assaults. The pictures below show the order in which things are done.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DwQocUrNQIY/UXAe5XsrbNI/AAAAAAAAC7g/tdYtWIcOEtE/s1600/SeqWH40K.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DwQocUrNQIY/UXAe5XsrbNI/AAAAAAAAC7g/tdYtWIcOEtE/s1600/SeqWH40K.png" /></a></td><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vlsMPlgIbTg/UXAe5cxvqLI/AAAAAAAAC7c/2gB1I57JQJA/s1600/SeqBA.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vlsMPlgIbTg/UXAe5cxvqLI/AAAAAAAAC7c/2gB1I57JQJA/s1600/SeqBA.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>WH40K</i> Sequence</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>BA</i> Sequence</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the <i>WH40K</i> sequence all moves must occur first<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5</span></sup>. To ensure that the assaulting unit does not obscure the target unit, it may have to swing around the flank a bit to ensure it does not the friendly unit's line of fire. After the initial movement, the supporting unit provides covering fire. Finally, the assault movement is carried out and the melee resolved.<br />
<br />
One 'problem' with this sequence is that the assaulting player must commit to the movement <i>prior</i> to knowing whether the covering fire is effective. That may be good or bad, depending upon whether you think the player having perfect information is a good thing or bad. Also, because of the turn sequence, it forces the player to swing wide, thus requiring more distance be covered. (If the assault scene in <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> has any validity, that may not be a bad thing.)<br />
<br />
In a<i> </i>random order, single unit, single action (ROSUSA) sequence, the first die drawn for the blue side will go to the unit providing the covering fire. If sufficient effect is provided, then when the next blue die is drawn, the second unit will go in straight. Of course, if an enemy die is drawn first, they may take some action that will pre-empt the assault.<br />
<br />
That is all fine, but again, this is not a general discussion about the impact of different turn sequences, but about the specific impact on solo gaming. The first impact is that it create <u>many</u> more decision points for the solo gamer. In a traditional IGOUGO, the decision of which unit to move first on a side is irrelevant; they all move at the same time, and it has no effect. Switching to a ROSUSA turn sequence forces you to prioritize actions between units into a sequence that makes sense. By focusing the solo gamer's attention down to the micro, and away from the macro, I think you break (or at least significantly reduce) the chance of bias for one side's plan over the other. You may still get caught up in the narrative, but then again, isn't that why we game?<br />
<br />
So the conclusion <u>I</u> am drawing is that some game mechanics are more conducive to 'better' solo gaming, and the traditional IGOUGO is not one of them. We have looked at another mechanism, the THW Reaction System, and its impact on solo gaming. Maybe it is time to start looking at ROSUSA? Maybe I will enjoy my solo wargaming if I forego my cardinal rule of "thou shalt not fundamentally change the rules" and instead start applying ROSUSA to <i>WH40K</i>, <i>FoW</i>, <i>Warmachine</i>, and some of those other games that I decided to drop because their IGOUGO turned me off from the game.<br />
<br />
I've rattled on enough here (it has taken me three nights to write this), and I am curious what you think. Can changing something as core as a turn sequence make a fundamental difference in how the game plays <u>for a solo gamer</u>? Especially a solo gamer that plays each side to the best of his ability? Does it change his mind-set enough, push away the inherent bias that develops? I would like to hear your thoughts?<br />
<br />
<hr />
<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup> At first I was going to say "<u>always</u> present mechanic", as I could not think of a game that did not have a turn sequence, until I remembered the card game <i>Spit</i>. Some might say it has "turns", and thus does have a turn sequence, but that is for a discussion another time … if anyone actually cares.<br />
<br />
<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></sup> I think this is one of the reasons some players do so poorly with random order, single unit, single action turn sequences; as they feel the game is so "chaotic" and "random", of which they have no control over, their plan becomes "just go with the flow". Their plan, is determined, and changed at each instant in which they are given a chance to act. In essence, their plan becomes "to react" rather than to act. That is why I think newer players should not start with a set of rules, such as <i>Bolt Action</i>, where they have a random order, single unit, single action turn sequence; the player never really sees an incentive in developing a cohesive plan and sticking to it (until it no longer works). Instead they see the randomness and think that it is the physical equivalent of a reaction-oriented first-person shooter video game. At least that is my theory.<br />
<br />
<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></sup> For those not familiar with <i>Bolt Action</i>'s turn sequence it is:<br />
<ol>
<li>Put one die in a bag for each unit each player has. Player A uses one color of dice and Player B uses a different color.</li>
<li>Shake the bag.</li>
<li>Draw a die from the bag. The color of the die determines who is the Active Player.</li>
<li>The Active Player designates a unit to be activated. That unit must not have already been activated this turn. (This is usually indicated by placing the colored die by the unit being activated.)</li>
<li>The Activated Unit performs an action, which may consist of movement, firing, and/or assault.</li>
<li>Resolve all combats and morale resulting from the action.</li>
<li>Repeat steps 2 through 6 until all the dice have been drawn from the bag.</li>
<li>Perform any End of Turn functions (army morale checks, victory condition checks, and so on).</li>
<li>Start back at step 1. Note that casualties caused will reduce the number of dice put back into the bag, reflecting your deteriorating command and control.</li>
</ol>
<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">4</span></sup> <i>WH40K</i> has changed a bit from Third to the current Sixth Edition. They have re-introduced overwatch, so the enemy can fire at charging units before they get into assault. But that is about it when it comes to the enemy reacting during his opponent's turn.<br />
<br />
<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5</span></sup> Yes, I know that <i>WH40K</i>, and other games like it (such as <i>Flames of War</i>), have a movement portion in the Assault Phase. The assumption here is that the enemy unit is far enough away to require movement in the Movement and Assault Phases.<br />
<ol>
</ol>
Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-48941125712823239232013-03-04T23:49:00.002-07:002013-03-04T23:49:15.374-07:00The Solo Gamer's Bag of TricksOn of my concerns with this blog is that I use specific rules or game systems to show concrete examples of how to using solo gaming mechanics that other authors allude to, but that those specific systems may not be of interest to the reader, and thus they skip the article. Or worse, they are interested in the subject, but because my example is so specific to a game system and its internal mechanics, they get little from it.<br />
<br />
My first series of articles were about <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2011/12/solo-gaming-with-hand-management.html" target="_blank">card (hand) management systems and rulesbases</a>, and I used <i>Memoir '44</i> as the game system to play out the example. My second series of articles were centered around <i>Two Hour Wargames</i>' <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2011/12/solo-gaming-and-reaction-system.html" target="_blank">reaction system</a> (which many people say <u>is</u> a solo gaming system in and of itself) and <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2012/02/rally-round-king-redux-1.html" target="_blank">later <i>Mythic</i> for decision making</a> that the reaction system did not cover. I used <i>Rally Round the King</i> as the game system to play out the example. Finally we come to the <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2012/12/finite-state-machines-and-miniatures.html" target="_blank">current series on using finite state machines</a> to program an opponent. For that I not only used <i>Saga</i>, but a fan (me) made variant using Mesoamericans. Talk about obscure!<br />
<br />
My plea to readers last time was to let me know if, for all my desire to make solo ideas "concrete", the rules I choose to use get in the way of understanding how to apply the concepts to your rules of choice, how useful can it really be?<br />
<br />
Well, the few comments I received (actually quite good, considering the average number of comments in most articles) indicated that, for at least the last example, it was not as bad as I thought:<br />
<br />
<i>I don't play Saga and wouldn't play Aztecs, etc., even if I did, but I still find your exercise with actual examples to be interesting and illuminating. Whether I will try anything like this myself is doubtful. – Fitz-Badger</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Like Fitz-Badger I'm not sure if I will play saga but I like the exercise. – Sean</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Although not interested in Saga, it *is* interesting reading the processes you go through developing and testing the FSM. – Shaun Travers</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Which brings us to the comment and response that led to this post<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup>:<br />
<br />
<i><b>Me</b>: The amount of work involved [in writing a programmed opponent using FSM] has made me think about solo systems, and whether or not something this complex is usable. I still think it is; it just cannot be your "I feel like a game right now" solo system. That means that you need a bag of tricks and you pull out the right trick for the situation.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Shaun Travers</b>: Are you saying that the bag of tricks is for different rules, or that you don't think a solo system can be developed for a single rule system without a "bag of tricks" (or framework(s) for want of a different term) that is required to enable to play "programmable" solo?</i><br />
<br />
I think that some tricks are rule-specific. For example, a method for hiding the cards available to your non-player opponent from you, the player, would not apply to a game system that does not use cards, or does use cards but does not require you to manage a hand. But other tricks are generic.<br />
<br />
The most basic solo gaming mechanic is the one that helps the gamer decide how to make the most basic of decisions:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>How do I decide which unit to move? (Important for games in which not all units can move each turn.)</li>
<li>How do I decide in what order units will act? (Important for games in which timing, reactions, and combinations play a part.)</li>
<li>How do I decide if the unit will fire or move? (Important in action point games where doing one action precludes doing the other, or places modifiers on either action.)</li>
<li>How do I decide if a unit will attack or defend? etc.</li>
</ul>
It is these decision making mechanisms – the ones that tell the player <u>what</u> to do in the non-player's stead – that I feel are the most important, and generally the hardest to implement <u>well</u>. So when I say "pull out the right trick for the situation", I am really referring to what decision making process will you use? Here are a few that have been discussed in the blog so far:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Just Do It: Play each side to the best of your ability.</li>
<li>Logic-Based, Chance Confirmed: Use a logical thought process to decide what is the most likely course of action, assign a probability to that decision, then use some chance element (e.g. dice, cards, etc.) to verify that the indicated choice was selected. Failure means repeating the process with the second most logical choice, and so on. This is exemplified by using <i>Mythic</i> as your decision-making tool.</li>
<li>Reaction-Based: Develop charts that define decision points (e.g. enemy entered missile range, enemy entered charge range, enemy on flank, etc.) and use a chance element to determine which pre-defined choice is made to react to the event.</li>
<li>Rule-Based: Develop a rules database of events that specify the exact action to be taken. Note that this can lead to a large number of conditions and exceptions, resulting in an IF-THEN-ELSE structure in order to get a more realistic response.</li>
<li>State-Based: This is a variation on the Rules-Based method and is used for when complex actions, or a series of related actions, must occur. The IF-THEN-ELSE structure of the rules exists, but is generally better structured as changes in state allow rules to triggered when exiting states, entering new states, and when testing for triggers within a state.</li>
</ul>
What the above list also reflects is the level of complexity required for each method. Reading from top to bottom you can easily see that more preparation work is required to execute that method. Often, it also reflects the increasing amount of time taken by the method to play out the game. If I feel like a game and I have an hour to kill, I will probably use the "Just Do It" method, unless I have something already setup and the method won't add too much time to the amount of time the game normally takes to play.<br />
<br />
A stated goal of mine has always been to develop a programmed opponent, such that it was rich enough – and understandable – that I could send the "program" to someone else and they could use it to play a solo game. If a framework were developed on how to "encode" a programmed opponent, then each of us could create our own opponents and literally trade them on an exchange. As some of us would write a more cautious and defensive opponent, while others would naturally write a more bold and aggressive one, we could have a variety of different personalities to fight that are not "like us".<br />
<br />
Of course, to get to that point, you have to define a mechanic for decision making that is rich enough to make the program enjoyable (and hopefully challenging), but also make it simple enough that most people interested in this concept would be willing to write their own. That means it cannot take a lot of work. Solo gamers would rather be gaming and painting than planning.<br />
<br />
<i>I also should probably revisit FSM's viv a vis RRtK. – Sean</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>And everytime you post, I think about doing my own FSM for ancient rules like RRTK. – Shaun Travers</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Hmmmm… There seems to be a trend here.<br />
<br />
Shaun made one more comment I would like to address:<br />
<br />
<i>Since your last post, I have been thinking more on orders. Saga uses the dice for orders, but games like RRTK have implicit rather than explicit orders. But if you use the Army tactics, you are implying orders. Eg left flank attack implies Attack orders for left flank and support orders for centre and likely defend orders for right flank. WRG 6th had a good description of simple orders so need to look them up. With orders and unit type, I think I can generate FSMs for units. – Shaun Travers</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Saga</i> uses dice for activations and "buffs". The dice <u>still</u> do not tell you what to do when the unit is activated. It is simply a means of simulating command and control problems. The same with "army tactics": what does "attack left" and "support center" mean when it comes to determining if a unit should move, how far should it move, and whether it should move in formation with other units?<br />
<br />
Games like <i>BattleLore</i> provide a great example of the consequences of those decisions, for example. <i>BattleLore</i> uses the concept of unit support, whereby a unit is "supported" if it has two friendly units adjacent to it. If a unit is supported, it can ignore one morale result. So, if the player gets a command card that allows two units to move, and the three units are currently in a mutually-supporting formation (i.e. all three units count as "supported" and all each of the three units count the other two as their support), the questions become:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Should you move and break formation?</li>
<li>If so, which two units should you move?</li>
<li>How should you move?</li>
</ul>
<br />
There might be a legitimate reason to break formation: the enemy is exposed and vulnerable to quick elimination; you can quickly attack and re-gain formation before the enemy can effectively respond, etc. But none of the systems Shaun mentioned (army tactic, pre-defined orders, reaction charts) tell the player the answers to the above questions; they simply provide more data points to consider when making the decision.<br />
<br />
What the exercise with <i>Saga</i> taught me is that it is more important to look at combinations of actions, rather than the action of individual units. What the player needs is a program to define a course of action more than whether Unit X should move 4" or 6", and directly straight ahead or 22º to the right.<br />
<br />
So, this means that in practice the player can actually use a combination of decision making processes to game solo. You can use one method to tell you what course of action the non-player general is taking, for example by using a rules database, another for units in critical positions, such as a reaction-based system when the enemy is within charge range (think of them as Immediate Action Drills, like infantry going into square in the face of cavalry), and a third method still for units not in critical positions, like Just Do It. So each "trick" might not only be dictated by the game system used, how much preparation time you are willing to spend, and your current mood, but it might be used depending upon the circumstances within a game. This is especially true if you are using complex systems for decision making. Some of the mundane details just cannot be forecast and requires that you rely to a certain extent on the player interpreting intent. Otherwise your rules database, condition statements, decision trees, or finite state machines will be so complex that you cannot complete them.<br />
<br />
Having put a lot of effort into DBA Solo (DBAS) in the past, I know that developing something generic results in two things: a lot more work; and generic results. I think a framework for a generic programmed opponent is a starting point, but you take that – whatever it is: rules database, reaction charts, states – and you use it as the basis for writing a scenario-specific implementation. Copy-and-paste programming, if you will. Eventually your generic programmed opponent will have a "attacker" variant, "defender" variant, "defending a hill ridge" variant, "attacking a town" variant, etc.<br />
<br />
So, who is up for developing a framework with me for a programmed opponent in <i>Rally Round the King</i>? If you really <u>are</u> interested, I could set up a small forum, like I did for my Dale's Wargames blog, and we can continue the dialogue there, publishing interim results here.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup> I prefer not to have a dialogue in the comments section.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-48231173573400498802013-03-03T19:06:00.000-07:002013-03-03T19:06:01.252-07:00Testing the Finite State MachineWell, the two finite state machine (FSM) articles (<a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2012/12/finite-state-machines-and-miniatures.html" target="_blank">part one</a> and <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2013/02/implementing-finite-state-machine-for.html" target="_blank">part two</a>) got a pretty good reaction (in terms of page views), so I know it is not a complete bore! I finally got a chance to test out the Tlaxcaltec "program" I <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2013/02/implementing-finite-state-machine-for.html" target="_blank">wrote about last time</a>. The reason for the delay, other than because I have been gaming online in a tournament, is because I have been working furiously on the draft <i>Saga</i> battle boards for both the Aztecs and the Tlaxcaltecs so I could actually run a game of <i>Saga</i>. Of course, some of those changes also invalidated my program, so I had to go an make some changes to that.<br />
<br />
For those of you out there that have had a computer software configuration problem, you know that the best way to find the root cause of the problem is to change <u>one</u> thing and then test, before changing another thing and testing, etc. If you change multiple things, and everything suddenly works, it is very hard to <u>know</u> which change actually fixed the issue. Of course, if all you care about is fixing the issue, it is not much of a problem.<br />
<br />
Well, designing a programmed opponent is much like troubleshooting software issues. If you are mucking about with a lot of other things – oh, say, working with draft rules for <i>Saga</i> battle boards – it is hard to know <u>which</u> thing caused a success or a failure! I knew that my program was not complete and would need modification during the game – I have never been a "big up-front design" kind of programmer – but I tried to limit that as much as possible. Only where I made a blatant error did I fix it.<br />
<br />
If you remember the program, I essentially wrote one for the non-player general (NPG), who makes the decisions of what <i>Saga</i> abilities to fund, and in what order to activate units. Here is a brief description of the program:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>
The program is for a four-point Tlaxcaltec force fighting a four-point Aztec force. Due to the limited number of points the bow-armed Warrior units would be operating without their "shield" units, and thus two abilities would not be of use at all.<br />
<br />
The program is designed to consider whether: all enemy units are outside of all missile weapons ranges; no enemy units are within charge range, but at least one is within missile weapons range; or at least one unit is within charge range of a friendly unit. These three states define:<br />
</i><br />
<ul><i>
<li>The exact order in which Saga dice will be allocated to abilities</li>
<li>The order, by troop type, in which units will be activated</li>
<li>The allowable actions, by troop type</li>
</i></ul>
<i>
When in the "All outside of missile range" state, the NPG will build up the expensive, shooting-oriented abilities. When in the "One inside of missile range, all outside of charge range" state, those expensive abilities would be used against high-value targets while the more utilitarian shooting abilities, and the expensive melee abilities, get allocated. Finally, when in the "One inside of charge range" state, certain melee abilities get funded first, followed by certain shooting abilities, and finally the remaining melee and shooting abilities.</i></blockquote>
To start off, this model actually worked pretty well. I started funding the "expensive" abilities (uses the rarer symbols or multiple dice) and using them to effect during the Aztec approach. That said, this is when the first instance of "I changed too many variables" bit me. You see, I had been basing up more troops so I could have larger battles and more variety in troop selection, and I succeeded to the point that my game switched from four points to eight! Further, I was able to buy the shield troops, thus certain abilities I had downplayed in the program now became more important. Of course, wanting to get stuck in, I made a few changes to the program and off I went.<br />
<br />
As I played the game I began to realize that my program was a little <u>too</u> rigid, especially when it came to movement. This was more a function of me being unfamiliar with how to use the Tlaxcaltecs properly than the program having a mechanical flaw. I had intentionally written a program that minimized movement. I was using a smaller table than normal (another unaccounted for variable change) with less depth to the deployment zone (yet another change), so I could start with enough distance between the two armies' start lines. Generally it is not a problem in <i>Saga</i>, as being up against your baseline has no negative effect (there are no "morale rolls" where falling back off the board removes the unit from play); in fact it has a somewhat positive one in that you can anchor your flank on "the edge of the world".<br />
<br />
I would say that the program largely worked until the Aztecs started getting in among the Tlaxcaltecs (the non-player side). There was not enough of a program developed for that state to play adequately, much less provide a challenge. It was at that point that I started making decisions for the NPG and noting down my thinking process so I could update the program.<br />
<br />
<b>The Test Battle</b><br />
<br />
This battle report will be a little different than most that I write up. This will be more of a snapshot of the game in progress, what event needs highlighting, and what impact it had on the program (during the game or in the future). It is not really meant for entertainment value. (Hence the reason I used an ugly game mat for the test.)<br />
<br />
First is a picture of the deployment. The Tlaxcaltecs (the programmed side) is on the left and the Aztecs are on the right. The Aztecs have more troops as they downgraded one unit of Warriors to Levy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6dHdtK5SAoE/UTPpFTLruRI/AAAAAAAACwQ/dBpFtfPqDbo/s1600/IMG_0495.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6dHdtK5SAoE/UTPpFTLruRI/AAAAAAAACwQ/dBpFtfPqDbo/s400/IMG_0495.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The Tlaxcaltecs have their shield warriors in the forward units on the flanks; the bow warriors are immediately behind them. This combination of shield unit in front with bow unit in the rear allows the use of the <i>Shielded Volley</i> and <i>Common Effort</i> abilities. The first, a critical tactic, allows the bow unit to shoot through the shield unit in front. This is the primary way of protecting the bow units from enemy melee troops; hits occur on the forward unit, which has a higher armor value.<br />
<br />
The <i>Common Effort</i> ability allows one unit to move its fatigue markers to another unit with 4" of it. This allows a shield unit to move its fatigue to the bow unit behind. As the bows are not in the front lines, they have more of an opportunity to rest, removing the fatigue marker.<br />
<br />
Because the original concept for the program was to forego the shield-and-bow combination, these two abilities were de-emphasized. More importantly, because of the way the battle board was designed, certain other abilities were incompatible with using this shielded tactic. Thus funding those abilities does not make any sense. Put another way, your deployment would dictate which of two tactics were built into the battle boards. (Note that I see this as more of a design flaw with the battle board and not with the program. I will be looking at eliminating that problem before the next test of the program.)<br />
<br />
In the center are the Tlaxcaltec elites. In front are two small (four figure) units of Jaguar Warriors. They are intentionally small in order to make them maneuverable surgical strike units. They also act as a screen for a larger (eight figure) Coyote Warrior unit wielding two-handed weapons and guarding the Warlord. This large unit is designed to destroy the unit guarding the enemy Warlord and slay (or capture) him. (As a programmed opponent, I am proud that they almost succeeded at it.)<br />
<br />
This next picture shows the board when the Aztecs breached the "All outside of missile range" state.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DBZ0Snj5Txs/UTPuRR32n2I/AAAAAAAACwY/6v0V1BqEu6w/s1600/IMG_0505.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DBZ0Snj5Txs/UTPuRR32n2I/AAAAAAAACwY/6v0V1BqEu6w/s400/IMG_0505.JPG" width="372" /></a></div>
<br />
I intentionally used a game mat with hexes for the test so that I could go back and clearly see how far away units were from one another without having to photograph rulers on the table. This allows you to clearly see something not anticipated when I re-wrote the program to account for the shield-and-bow combination: the bows were a full three inches behind the front of the shield units. Given the bow's 12" range, the 3" set-back for the bows, and the enemy's 6" move, the enemy would never hit the "One inside of missile range, all outside of charge range" state!<br />
<br />
Needless to say, this error created quite a bit of havoc with the program. It meant I went from funding shooting abilities to needing melee abilities. This was when sometimes, as a solo gamer, you need to cheat to help your opponent. I rearranged some dice and kept on. But it pointed out something very important regarding the abilities that I selected for the battle board, so it was a useful lesson after all.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r-xGBxJKBbc/UTPw_gsArKI/AAAAAAAACwg/RIbfN4xaW_U/s1600/IMG_0513.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r-xGBxJKBbc/UTPw_gsArKI/AAAAAAAACwg/RIbfN4xaW_U/s320/IMG_0513.JPG" width="230" /></a></div>
<br />
Here is where my "Counter Charge" in the program kicked in. One of the Jaguar Knights "flying columns" darted out between an Aztec Eagle Knights unit and a Jaguar Knights unit in order to attempt the capture of my Warlord. They lost that melee, however. (A Warlord doesn't wear a green parrot suit on the battlefield without being able to kick some serious ass, after all! <img border="0" height="14" src="http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/biggrin.gif" width="14" />)<br />
<br />
The Aztec Jaguar Knights then came to the rescue of their Warlord, but again the Tlaxcaltec "Counter Charge" kicked in.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O1xTXxZUJFk/UTPz1nIxwOI/AAAAAAAACww/7uXvcNj7RrQ/s1600/IMG_0532.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="254" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O1xTXxZUJFk/UTPz1nIxwOI/AAAAAAAACww/7uXvcNj7RrQ/s320/IMG_0532.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The Coyote Knights and the Tlaxcaltec Warlord charged in and slew the Aztec Jaguar Knights, leaving the Aztec Warlord exposed and alone.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HyCrej6iMyg/UTP0Vl17n_I/AAAAAAAACw4/NHWmvqqsdtc/s1600/IMG_0533.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HyCrej6iMyg/UTP0Vl17n_I/AAAAAAAACw4/NHWmvqqsdtc/s320/IMG_0533.JPG" width="316" /></a></div>
<br />
They had even captured a prisoner in the battle. (Although I accidentally put the wrong figure in the shot. That is a Tlaxcaltec Coyote Knight!) The Aztecs, however, had played a dirty trick (i.e. a Saga ability) and left the Tlaxcaltecs near exhaustion.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TBL0hHayzSg/UTP05A9-uHI/AAAAAAAACxA/qHbKCT1hFgw/s1600/IMG_0534.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TBL0hHayzSg/UTP05A9-uHI/AAAAAAAACxA/qHbKCT1hFgw/s320/IMG_0534.JPG" width="254" /></a></div>
<br />
As a side note, Exhaustion has a definite game effect in <i>Saga</i>. Units that are exhausted fight with half the number of attack dice and cannot move or shoot until they rest. Warlords and elite warriors reach Exhaustion at four fatigue markers; the picture above shows them at three markers each (it was quickly at four markers, making them both Exhausted, and thus <u>very</u> vulnerable).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-At8cZ9O9b6I/UTP1nIiQrxI/AAAAAAAACxI/2fvX1FzWHdY/s1600/IMG_0535.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-At8cZ9O9b6I/UTP1nIiQrxI/AAAAAAAACxI/2fvX1FzWHdY/s400/IMG_0535.JPG" width="297" /></a></div>
<br />
The picture above shows that the Aztecs were poised to capture the exhausted Tlaxcaltec Warlord. All they needed to do was kill off the remaining two Coyote Knight bodyguards. A volley from the atlatls and a sacrifice charge by some Aztec warriors quickly accomplish that task.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rqzx-HenNaw/UTP2zV3CTBI/AAAAAAAACxY/haq-UjAbDRQ/s1600/IMG_0539.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="296" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rqzx-HenNaw/UTP2zV3CTBI/AAAAAAAACxY/haq-UjAbDRQ/s320/IMG_0539.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Now to go charge in for the capture. The Aztec Warlord calls forth his Eagle Knights…<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2SAPNK3TG0c/UTP2N2xYl_I/AAAAAAAACxQ/45sPOUduSrk/s1600/IMG_0540.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2SAPNK3TG0c/UTP2N2xYl_I/AAAAAAAACxQ/45sPOUduSrk/s320/IMG_0540.JPG" width="306" /></a></div>
<br />
But the program had wisely funded the ability <i>Show of Strength</i> when it had the opportunity. The Aztecs are forced to abort the charge and withdraw.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zMjO8aUTFuk/UTP3Gq5250I/AAAAAAAACxg/yd-RiS5FBbg/s1600/IMG_0541.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zMjO8aUTFuk/UTP3Gq5250I/AAAAAAAACxg/yd-RiS5FBbg/s320/IMG_0541.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Lest you think that somehow this was pulled off as a surprise, it was not. One player is allowed to see what his opponent has allocated dice to at any time, so I knew it was coming. As the Aztec player I made the play in order to strip the ability. As it uses a Rare symbol to fund it, the NPG would have to roll another Rare next turn to be able to thwart me again.<br />
<br />
As it turned out, the NPG <u>did</u> roll another Rare and did in fact thwart another attempt to capture the enemy Warlord. After that play I had run out of turns in the scenario, so the NPG played to a minor loss. Trust me, I was fine with that for a first foray.<br />
<br />
<b>Lessons Learned</b><br />
<br />
Clearly I should have played both draft battle boards prior to this test. This would have given me a better idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the Tlaxcaltecs and been able to write a better program. I had written the original program with a vague concept of the forces that would be used, that no longer held true when game time come, and an understanding that the Tlaxcaltecs would "play something like the Welsh do", which was totally incorrect.<br />
<br />
Second, you should make sure that you are <u>not</u> in a "pushing lead around" mood when you start. If you use this method you need to be in a program writing mood when you start your solo game. If you want to actually game, you will rush the program writing process. It takes work to write a program down as you really need to think about your decision making process and put it to paper.<br />
<br />
Further, it takes more effort during the game than if you simply "played both sides to the best of your ability". First, you are walking through a program, which takes time. Second, you will never foresee every eventuality<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup>, so there are times when you need to stop and add to the program. Don't fall into the trap that somehow you will remember the decision points that you did not think about (there will be a lot of them) and you will also remember your thought process so you can replicate your decisions later. It won't happen.<br />
<br />
So, all of this begs the question: is it worth all of the effort? My hope is to re-write the program, send it to someone else, and <i>they</i> get a good game out of it. I think that might be a little problematic, considering that I am using two very specific, fan-made factions for a game that, although is currently popular (in terms of buzz), is not very widely played. Now a program for Space Marines™using the <i>Warhammer 40,000 Sixth Edition</i> rules – that would be another matter entirely. But I did what I did, and it provided a good, maybe even slightly surprising game for me because it forced me to take actions I might not have normally taken, especially as I had written the program to be more passive in the opening moves and more aggressive in melee, than I thought that I had.<br />
<br />
It looks like it is time to look at my "AI Programming for Games" book again and see what I can incorporate next. I am not abandoning FSMs; it is just that this blog is about exploring ideas and trying to make them concrete. That is something I complain about with solo gaming books on the market; they are just a bunch of random, disconnected ideas with few examples of how to really use them. I hope that I have given you enough depth in these three articles to give you something to try, or at the very least, helped you determine whether this might be your cup of tea. Let me know either way.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup> TMP user <i>emckinney</i> had the comment: "The big battles scenes in the Lord of the Rings movies used CGI soldiers for the big battles (no surprise). A program that was run for each soldier determined his behavior. If the enemy as far away and the soldier had lots of friends around, he charged the enemy. If the soldier was close to lots of enemies, he fell back. (There was a formula driving all of this.)<br />
<br />
When the ran the battle scene for the first time, the two armies charged each other … then, just before contact they all pulled back. Then they charged, but pulled back before contact. they kept pulsing like this, as the programmers watched in horror. Turned out that they needed to do quite a bit of tuning of the weighting of the variables!"<br />
<br />
Hey, if they can't anticipate this behavior, no reason I can't flub it up too!Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-16086126465274978002013-02-11T00:37:00.000-07:002013-02-11T00:44:21.212-07:00Implementing a Finite State Machine for SagaSo, I hope to get some good feedback on this blog post, as I need to know if this example is too specific to a game system that it is not usable or understandable for those not familiar with the game system in question (which is <i><a href="http://www.grippingbeast.com/shop.php?CatID=2396" target="_blank">Saga</a></i>, by Tomahawk Studios).<br />
<br />
By the way, this is dedicated to my internet buddy, Shaun Travers, who is weathering a painful condition. Shaun's blog provided some great reading and inspiration on game mechanics and analysis. Shaun, I hope this helps take your mind off of things and is something you can find a use or inspiration for in your gaming.<br />
<br />
<b>The Story So Far…</b><br />
<br />
If you have been tracking some of my gaming over on my <a href="http://daleswargames.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Dale's Wargames blog</a>, then you know that I have not only started playing <i>Saga</i>, but being the incurable 'rules tweaker' that I am, could not play the game straight and hard to start developing my own factions … in another part of the world … for another time period! In my defense that is largely because:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>I heard great things about the rules in a series of podcast interviews, so I knew I wanted to try it.</li>
<li>I purchased (on impulse) a large, painted collection of 25mm Aztecs and I was searching for a set of rules to use with them. As there are more than 450 figures in the collection, I would still have more than enough figures left over after I built two DBA-sized armies.</li>
<li>Meso-American warfare has a lot of similarities to Dark Ages 'shield wall'-type warfare. (Trust me, when you have a 450 figure collection collecting dust it is easy to convince yourself of that.)</li>
<li>It was going to take me a long time to make two Dark Ages armies out of wood (see my <a href="http://wooden-warriors.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Wooden Warriors blog</a>).</li>
</ol>
So, with those noble justifications I set about creating a Meso-American variant for <i>Saga</i>. I pulled out my two Osprey books and one Ian Heath book on the Aztecs and started reading. Before long I knew that the enemy I wanted to use for the Aztecs were the Tlaxcaltecs<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup>. This would give me a missile-oriented army to oppose the vicious and melee-oriented army; a nice contrast.<br />
<br />
At first I simply used the Welsh abilities as the Tlaxcaltecs, and that was great for learning the rules and understanding the dynamics of the game (good to know the rules before you tweak them), but as the Welsh are mostly armed with javelins and the Tlaxcaltecs with bows, and javelins and bows working completely different in <i>Saga</i>, it was obvious that I needed to model the Tlaxcaltecs a little more accurately in order to test the abilities I would give them. I finally put <a href="http://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2013/02/tlaxcalan-battle-board-for-saga.html" target="_blank">the first draft</a> out this weekend, including a faction-specific battle board.<br />
<br />
<b>The Basics of Saga</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zdBDaQXnpeU/URagc6rhJnI/AAAAAAAACuQ/Tqdqa-qI01I/s1600/Tlaxcalan_Battleboard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zdBDaQXnpeU/URagc6rhJnI/AAAAAAAACuQ/Tqdqa-qI01I/s400/Tlaxcalan_Battleboard.jpg" width="285" /></a></div>
So, in order to understand what I am about to present it helps to know how <i>Saga</i> works. You can get some deeper ideas from my <a href="http://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2012/12/saga-review-and-test-battle.html" target="_blank">review of the rules</a> and subsequent <a href="http://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2012/12/mesoamerican-saga-battle-report.html" target="_blank">battle</a> <a href="http://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-hundred-years-war-saga.html" target="_blank">reports</a>, but here are the basics.<br />
<br />
Each turn a player rolls SAGA dice. Each die has three different symbols on it (the Common symbol being on three faces, the Uncommon on two faces, and the Rare symbol on a single face). These symbols are matched to the symbols shown on the faction's battle board (my Tlaxcaltec one being shown to the right, although it uses '1-3', '4-5', and '6' as its symbols so you can use regular six-sided dice as SAGA dice). Fulfilling the dice requirements of an ability (a box on the board) allows you to use that ability during your or your opponent's turn (the ability will specify which).<br />
<br />
These abilities and their combinations, along with the special rules granted to the faction (akin to an Army List) give it its unique historical flavor. The Welsh battle board tends towards skirmishing and annoying the enemy while the Viking battle board tends toward crushing melee.<br />
<br />
Once you have finished allocating dice you start activating units one at a time and giving them an order, either Movement, Shooting, or Rest. Some abilities can be used during specific actions, like Movement or Shooting, and some can be in reaction to your enemy's actions. A turn is over when you have activated all the units you wish to and completed the ordered actions.<br />
<br />
A unit can be ordered to take more than one action, by using more activation dice and accumulating fatigue faster. So by allocating three activation dice to a unit it could move three times, shoot three times, rest once, move once, and shoot once, or any number of other combinations. Given that you have only so many dice, for both activations and abilities, you do not have complete freedom with your troops; you often have to make hard choices on how to allocate your dice for usage.<br />
<br />
<b>Isn't This a Solo Gaming Blog?</b><br />
<br />
And this brings us to solo gaming. This decision-making process – on how to allocate your dice and what actions to take with your units – is what generally makes these sorts of rules so hard to play solo. Of course there is the method to 'play each side to the best of your ability', but to my mind that is the least challenging method of play. Bias towards one side always creeps in.<br />
<br />
My goal has largely been to design an artificial opponent in such a way that much of the decision-making is taken away from the player and performed by a 'program'. If that program can be structured and standardized, then it might even be possible to develop several programs and trade them between players. The goal might not be so much to develop a programmed opponent that cannot be beaten as much as one that is both entertaining and challenging. (At this point I would settle for plausible.)<br />
<br />
So the first task I want to solve is how to decide, for the programmed opponent, which abilities to allocate to with the SAGA dice rolled. As the abilities define which unit types are eligible to activate (Move, Shoot, or Rest) and what advantages they will have, this is a critical piece to program. It is probably also one of the hardest because it essentially defines your programmed opponent's whole strategy.<br />
<br />
So I present to you the first draft of the Tlaxcaltec 'programmed opponent'.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Tlaxcaltec Program</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">This document contains the 'program' for a Tlaxcaltec force fighting the Aztecs using the Saga miniatures rules. This program provides the 'intelligence' in how the Tlaxcaltec side should be run, especially with regards to how Saga dice should be allocated abilities and for unit activations. When units are activated, the program indicates which actions should be taken (Movement, Shooting, or Rest).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">This program is very specific to the Tlaxcaltec force, as it refers to Saga abilities that they possess, along with their troop types. It is also specific to fighting against the Aztecs, as their fighting style is embedded into these rules.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">How to Use the Program</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Every turn the Tlaxcaltec side starts in one of four particular states:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">* All enemy units are outside of missile weapon range</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">* All enemy units are outside of charge range (but inside missile weapon range)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">* Friendly units are within one or more enemy units' charge range</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">At the start of each turn the player goes down the list of Triggers, in order, to see if the force's state changes. If so, the Exit actions of the state you are leaving are executed, followed bby the Enter actions of the new state. Once that is complete, follow the Orders section to determine which SAGA dice to roll and how to allocate them. Once complete, follow the instructions in the Activation section to determine the order of unit activation and what type of action each unit will take.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">----</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">State: all enemy outside of missile weapon range</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Note that being outside of missile weapon range includes being within range of a unit that is out of line of sight and can currently neither fire, nor be fired upon.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Description: Units will build high-end SAGA abilities and activate ONLY to rest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Triggers:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Enemy within charge range: exit this state and go to state 'enemy within charge range'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Enemy within missile weapon range: exit this state and go to state 'all enemy outside of charge range'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Enter: no action to take</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Exit: no action to take</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Orders Phase: use SAGA dice in the following order:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>1. Re-roll all unallocated dice, allocated Common dice, and dice allocated in the leftmost column.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2. If you have more than two Rare symbols use one dice for the 'Activation Pool' ability.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3. Allocate enough dice to activate all Exhausted units once. Their activation will be used to Rest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4. Allocate enough Common dice to activate all units that are one FATIGUE away from Exhaustion [1]. Their activation will be used to Rest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5. Allocate Rare dice to Saga abilities in the order: Heavy Arrows, Eye of the Eagle, Loose Arrows!, Activation Pool, and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6. Allocate Uncommon dice to Saga abilities in the order: Loose Arrows!, Aimed Volley, Eye of the Eagle, Heavy Arrows, Massed Volley [3], Shoulder to Shoulder, Shielded Volley, and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already has already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>7. Allocate Common dice to Saga abilities in the order: Harassing Fire, Heavy Arrows, Aimed Volley, Shoulder to Shoulder, Common Efforts [2], Shielded Volley, and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already has already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[1] Note that a unit that qualifies for step 2 does not qualify for step 3, even if allocated a die in step 2.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[2] Note that funding this ability may cause you to require fewer activations or different dice for steps 3 and 4.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[3] Note that funding this ability may force you to exit this state and enter the 'all enemy outside of charge range' state if it would make any of your bow-armed units eligible to fire upon an enemy unit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Activation Phase: Activate Exhausted units before other units. Activate Zoomorphic Warriors before Warriors, who activate before Levy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Movement: No activations should be used for Movement actions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Shooting: No activations should be used for Shooting actions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Melee: If, due to an enemy ability, a unit is drawn into Melee, the ability 'Show of Strength' should be used if available. Otherwise use 'Shoulder to Shoulder' and 'Attack Pool', if they are available.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Activation/Reaction: Use the ability 'Harassing Fire' only on an enemy unit </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">State: all enemy outside of charge range</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Note that being outside of charge range is being outside of the normal movement allowance for one Movement action (i.e. L for mounted in the open, M for foot in the open, and S for either type in or that must move through Uneven Ground).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Description: Units will primarily utilize their missile weapons for Shooting action, resting with the those that require it, and building SAGA abilities.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Triggers:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Enemy within charge range: exit this state and go to state 'enemy within charge range'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>No enemy within missile weapon range: exit this state and go to state 'all enemy outside of missile weapon range'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Enter: no action to take</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Exit: no action to take</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Orders Phase: use SAGA dice in the following order:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>1. Re-roll all unallocated dice, allocated Common dice, and dice allocated in the leftmost column.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2. If you have more than two Rare symbols use one dice for the 'Activation Pool' ability.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3. Allocate enough dice to activate all Exhausted units once. Their activation will be used to Rest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4. Allocate enough Common dice to activate all units that are one FATIGUE away from Exhaustion [1]. Their activation will be used to Rest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5. Allocate Rare dice to Saga abilities in the order: Heavy Arrows, Eye of the Eagle, Loose Arrows! [3], Activation Pool, and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6. Allocate enough Common or Uncommon dice to activate all units that are armed with missile weapons and currently eligible to fire for Shooting actions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>7. Allocate Uncommon dice to Saga abilities in the order: Loose Arrows! [3], Aimed Volley, Eye of the Eagle, Heavy Arrows, Massed Volley [3], Shoulder to Shoulder, Shielded Volley [3], and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already has already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>8. Allocate Common dice to Saga abilities in the order: Harassing Fire, Heavy Arrows, Aimed Volley, Shoulder to Shoulder, Common Efforts [2], Shielded Volley [3], and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already has already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[1] Note that a unit that qualifies for step 3 does not qualify for step 4, even if allocated a die in step 3.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[2] Note that funding this ability may cause you to require fewer activations or different dice for steps 3 and 4.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[3] Note that funding this ability may cause you to require fewer activations for steps 6.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Activation Phase: Activate Exhausted units before other units. Activate units that are within one FATIGUE of exhaustion and have not yet activated after activating Exhausted units and before other units. Activate Zoomorphic Warriors before Warriors, who activate before Levy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Movement: No activations should be used for Movement actions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Shooting: Shooting is always at the enemy unit that can be hit by the greater number of figures. If more than one unit is eligible, fire at the closest enemy unit. If there is still a tie, fire at the unit fired at last. If no unit had been fired upon previously, randomly determine the target between the closest eligible targets.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Melee: If, due to an enemy ability, a unit is drawn into Melee, the ability 'Show of Strength' should be used if available. Otherwise use 'Shoulder to Shoulder' and 'Attack Pool', if they are available.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">State: any enemy within charge range</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Note that being within charge range is being within one Movement action of the enemy unit's normal movement allowance (i.e. L for mounted in the open, M for foot in the open, and S for either type in or that must move through Uneven Ground).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Description: Zoomorphic Warriors will charge, or get into position to charge. Other units will utilize their missile weapons for Shooting actions, resting with those that require it, and building SAGA abilities.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Triggers:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>No enemy within charge range: exit this state and go to state 'all enemy outside of charge range'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>No enemy within missile weapon range: exit this state and go to state 'all enemy outside of missile weapon range'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Enter: no action to take</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Exit: no action to take</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Orders Phase: use SAGA dice in the following order:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>1. Re-roll all unallocated dice, allocated Common dice, and dice allocated in the leftmost column.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2. If you have more than two Rare symbols use one dice for the 'Activation Pool' ability.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3. Allocate enough dice to activate all Exhausted units once. Their activation will be used to Rest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4. Allocate enough dice to activate all Zoomorphic Warriors once for a Movement action. [4]</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5. Allocate enough Common dice to activate all units that are one FATIGUE away from Exhaustion [1]. Their activation will be used to Rest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6. Allocate enough dice to activate all Warrior units that have one or two figures remaining for a Movement action.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>7. Allocate Rare dice to Saga abilities in the order: Heavy Arrows, Eye of the Eagle, Loose Arrows! [3], Activation Pool, and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>8. Allocate enough Common or Uncommon dice to activate all units that are armed with missile weapons and currently eligible to fire for Shooting actions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>9. Allocate Uncommon dice to Saga abilities in the order: Loose Arrows! [3], Aimed Volley, Eye of the Eagle, Heavy Arrows, Massed Volley [3], Shoulder to Shoulder, Shielded Volley [3], and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already has already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>10. Allocate Common dice to Saga abilities in the order: Harassing Fire, Heavy Arrows, Aimed Volley, Shoulder to Shoulder, Common Efforts [2], Shielded Volley [3], and Attack Pool, skipping any ability that already has already met its dice requirement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[1] Note that a unit that qualifies for step 3 does not qualify for step 5, even if allocated a die in step 3.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[2] Note that funding this ability may cause you to require fewer activations or different dice for steps 3 and 5.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[3] Note that funding this ability may cause you to require fewer activations for steps 8.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">[4] Note that a Zoomorphic Warrior unit close enough to the Warlord can be activated for free, not requiring the allocation of a die for movement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Activation Phase: Activate Exhausted units before other units. Activate units that are within one FATIGUE of exhaustion, or have one or two figures remaining in the unit, and have not yet activated after activating Exhausted units and before other units. Activate Warriors before Levy, who activate before Zoomorphic Warriors. The Warriors and Levy activate earlier than the Zoomorphic Warriors specifically so they can shoot into enemy units and soften them up prior to the Zoomorphic Warriors' charge.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Movement: Zoomorphic Warriors will activate for Movement, moving directly toward the closest unit that triggered the state change, if the unit has three or more figures remaining, or two or more figures remaining and moving with the Warlord. If there is more than one Zoomorphic Warrior unit, each can move towards a different unit, but in all cases move towards the closest units.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Shooting: Shooting is always at the enemy unit that can be hit by the greater number of figures. If more than one unit is eligible, fire at the closest enemy unit. If there is still a tie, fire at the unit fired at last. If no unit had been fired upon previously, randomly determine the target between the closest eligible targets.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Melee: If the Zoomorphic Warriors enter melee, the abilities 'Shoudler to Shoulder' and 'Attack Pool' should be used, if available. If, due to an enemy ability, a unit other than Zoomorphic Warriors is drawn into Melee, the ability 'Show of Strength' should be used if available. Otherwise use 'Shoulder to Shoulder' and 'Attack Pool', if they are available.</span><br />
<br />
All references to abilities can be found on the battle board above. "Zoomorphic Warriors" are the elites – the "Hearthguard" in <i>Saga</i> – while I retain the names "Warriors" and "Levy" as they are used in <i>Saga</i>.<br />
<br />
Again, I welcome any comments, even those along the lines of "I cannot make heads or tails of what you are trying to do because I don't understand <i>Saga</i>."<br />
<br />
<hr />
<sup><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></sup> I made the mistake of calling them 'Tlaxcalans', which apparently is an Anglicized term fallen out of favor. I still have to correct <a href="http://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2013/02/tlaxcalan-battle-board-for-saga.html">the battle board I made</a>.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-47871142512729679612013-02-08T19:36:00.003-07:002013-02-10T18:19:05.470-07:00New Solo Game Design Book<b>Upcoming Book Purchase</b><br />
<br />
I have purchased the first two volumes on game design by Wally Simon (and edited
by Russ Lockwood) and really liked them. Now On Military Matters has published a
third volume called <a href="http://onmilitarymatters.com/pages/dfcatalog3.php?firstdte=2/07/2013" target="_blank"><i>SOLO SECRETS OF WARGAME DESIGN: Volume 3: A Tabletop Toolkit of Ideas, Analysis, and Rule Mechanics</i></a>. The book's description is listed as:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>The third volume of the SECRETS OF WARGAME DESIGN series concentrates on solo
wargaming ideas. Peel back the layers of game theory to generate great solo
games for a variety of periods. Delve into the real nuts and bolts of game
mechanics to create a more compelling – and often more entertaining – tabletop
battle.<br />
</i><br />
<ul><i>
<li>Simple Solo Guidelines: Morale, Data Sheets, and a Napoleonic River Line
Attack</li>
<li>Good Morning Vietnam: Cards, Squares, and Sequences</li>
<li>WWII Efficiency: Too Much Damage, Loss Points, Reaction Points, and Combat
Points</li>
<li>Napoleonic Equality of Inequality: Simon's Theory of Fire Power</li>
<li>Scenario Generation: A Line in the Terrain</li>
<li>Speedy Solo Siege: Zones, Building Points, and the Passage of Time</li>
<li>Third Time's Charm: Modern Solo Squad Skirmish</li>
<li>Renaissance Squared: Grids, Groups, and Grinds</li>
<li>Bad Blood in the Balkans: WWII Command, Control, Activation, and Quality</li>
<li>Rules are Greener: American Revolution Response Chart and Efficiency Levels</li>
<li>Solo Hastings: Flights of Fancy?</li>
<li>NATO Rescue in Serbia: Pop-Up Squads, Prisoners, and Running Battles</li>
<li>BONUS: The Wally Quadfecta: Universal Guidelines for Good Game Design</li>
</i></ul>
</blockquote>
The book is $19 and is 50 pages.<br />
<br />
<b>Order Writing</b><br />
<br />
The <a href="http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/SoloWarGame/" target="_blank">Solo Wargame forum on Yahoo</a> has a thread about writing orders which triggered a thought or two in me. I was thinking about my younger days when I used to play the <i>Colonial Skirmish Rules</i> and how signals were used to change orders. As my first test of the Finite State Machine was to be using my Meso-americans and the <i>Saga</i> rules, I thought I would incorporate orders into my game. As signaling with banners is very much a part of that style of warfare, I thought I might come up with some rules for it, despite the fact that command and control doesn't really exist in <i>Saga</i> (or at least is largely abstracted away). I hope to have a battle report on that next, using a hex grid to regulate measurements. If you read my Dale's Wargames blog, you know that I am caught up in a <i>BattleLore</i> tournament over Vassal, so it is taking up a fair portion of my time.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1998967545804783754.post-67399971799412971872012-12-13T20:49:00.002-07:002012-12-13T20:49:45.360-07:00Finite State Machines and ... Miniatures Gaming?<blockquote>
<i>A word of warning: this blog is basically my way of thinking through ideas, even unfinished ones. I find that I do better writing things down rather than just sitting there pondering, and hoping I remember the good bits later. I hope you will bear with me as I sort through my thoughts and hopefully you will find something of interest and use.</i></blockquote>
The first AI technique discussed in <i>Programming Game AI By Example</i> (see last blog entry for the reference to this book) is a classic: finite state machines (FSM). In the words of the author, the definition of an FSM is:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>A finite state machine is a device, or a model of a device, which has a finite number of states it can be in at any given time and can operate on input to either make transitions from one state to another or to cause an output or action to take place. A finite state machine can only be in one state at any moment in time.</i></blockquote>
The idea being using an FSM is to decompose an object's behavior (in our case, a unit's behavior) into manageable states. A simple example provided in the book is probably one most of us can understand, that of the "ghost" in the video game <i>Pac Man</i>. The normal state of the ghost is to "chase Pac Man". However, when Pac Man eats the power pill, the ghost switches from "chase" to "evade". The ghost reverts back to chase mode once the timer runs down and the power pill wears off. The rules for the ghost might look something like this:<br />
<br />
<pre>rule: if in 'Chase Mode' and 'Power Pill Active'
then switch to 'Evade Mode'
else continue 'Chase Mode'
rule: if in 'Evade Mode' and not 'Power Pill Active'
then switch to 'Chase Mode'
else continue 'Evade Mode'</pre>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ntugOzjUciI/UMpgiWHjQsI/AAAAAAAACfE/TJ_5WSbu5x8/s1600/FSM01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ntugOzjUciI/UMpgiWHjQsI/AAAAAAAACfE/TJ_5WSbu5x8/s1600/FSM01.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The same sort of behavior can be encapsulated for units in a game. This is essentially what I was referring to when I discussed <a href="http://solo-battles.blogspot.com/2011/12/solo-wargaming-with-hand-management.html" target="_blank">creating and using programmed opponents</a> on this blog. What makes a FSM "better" than the rule-based approach I discussed previously is a matter of organization. The rule base mechanic simply lists a set of rules to follow, in a strict order, and to stop evaluating the rules once you find a rule that applies. What makes developing this rule base complex is setting the evaluation order of the rules. It is not usually impossible to determine the correct order, but sometimes it gets so complex that the gamer decides to forego the whole process and just "play each side to the best of my ability", which after awhile can get pretty stale and predictable.<br />
<br />
Put another way, a single rule base evaluates a set of conditions in a strict order. An FSM allows you to evaluate conditions in order <i>based upon the state you are currently in</i>. You can essentially have a set of rules associated with every state.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UR1DANK2iHE/UMpjXykSZlI/AAAAAAAACfU/fLWCLb68L2c/s1600/Game01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UR1DANK2iHE/UMpjXykSZlI/AAAAAAAACfU/fLWCLb68L2c/s320/Game01.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sample Game</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Okay, enough of the theoretical; you can get that from any book. Let's make this concrete. The image to the right shows the start of a skirmish game. The red player (you) have four units: two Warriors (the groups of eight red circles, on the flanks), one Bodyguard unit (the four red circles in the center), and the Warlord (the large red circle in the center). The blue player (represented by a non-player general) also has four units, but they are Warriors (group of eight blue circles on the left), Levy (group of 12 light blue circles in the center, on the hill), the Bodyguard (four dark blue circles on the right), and the Warlord (large blue-in-white circle on the right).<br />
<br />
The player's side is oriented towards melee. In fact, all four units have <u>no</u> missile weapons. The non-player side is oriented towards shooting; all four units have missile and melee weapons, but are weaker in melee than their red counter-parts. The basic blue battle plan is to:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Use the Levy and Bodyguard to fire upon and weaken the opposite red unit.</li>
<li>When the red unit has been weakened sufficiently, the Bodyguard will charge in with the Warlord and finish it off.</li>
<li>The Warrior unit will skirmish with the red units, attempting to engage them sufficiently so they do not go support their unit being attacked by the Levy and Bodyguard, but not so heavily engaged that they become overwhelmed.</li>
</ul>
For now, I am going to ignore the orders of the Levy and Bodyguard and simply focus on the Warriors. Basically, their mission is to tie up one, and hopefully, to three units. There are three basic states (although this may depend upon the rules you use):<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Neither in missile or melee range.</li>
<li>In missile range.</li>
<li>In melee range.</li>
</ul>
There are all sorts of variations or "sub-states", if you prefer to call them that, but I like to think more in terms of conditions. Rather than having a state for "in missile range of the Warriors" and another for "in missile range of the Bodyguard" and maybe yet another for "in missile range of the Warriors and Bodyguard", etc. I simply treat it as the state "in missile range", with conditions indicating which units that applies to. I can then have rules that list the preferable target in order of precedence.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sviYk-mHBTU/UMqXT_cehvI/AAAAAAAACfk/IB0toXRY9IU/s1600/RangeBands.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sviYk-mHBTU/UMqXT_cehvI/AAAAAAAACfk/IB0toXRY9IU/s1600/RangeBands.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Range Bands</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
One thing to note about these example states is that you can visualize them as range bands. Consider a unit that moves 6" and has a missile range of 6". The opponent has a movement of 6" also. Technically, if you are in the Melee band, you are also within the Missile and Move bands. This helps us understand that we need to set an precedence order for checking which band, and thus which state we are (or should be) in: Melee, then Missile, then Move.<br />
<br />
So, let's think about this, We start the game in the Move band, i.e. outside of both melee (6" move) and missile (6" move plus 6" shoot) range. The first condition to check is whether the enemy moved and we are now at a different range. To keep it simple (for now), let's assume we have the first move, and the situation is as indicated in the map above.<br />
<br />
My basic program is to move towards the closest enemy and get into a position where the unit can fire its missiles, and if possible, move back. If the enemy approaches, the unit is to back off, firing missiles as it retreats. (Note: the basic reason for firing then retreating is because the unit's missile range is 6", the same as the movement distance of the enemy. That means if the unit moves forward to fire, it put itself into Melee range automatically. Thus it wants to back out of Melee range before the enemy unit can react. Your rules may not allow such a maneuver, thus this model will not work for you. The rules I will be testing this with, <i>Saga</i>, do allow this sort of behavior.) One other point might be that where the unit can either move and fire at either the Warriors or Bodyguards unit, it will choose the more valuable unit, the Bodyguards.<br />
<br />
As the rules I will be testing this with is <i>Saga</i>, for those unfamiliar with the rules here are the basics you need to know:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Each turn the player gets a certain number of dice to roll.</li>
<li>Each die rolled indicates what abilities the player can activate during the turn, which includes ordering a unit to take a single action.</li>
<li>A unit can be ordered to take more than one action per turn by committing more dice to that unit.</li>
<li>The more actions a unit takes in a single turn, the more fatigued the unit becomes.</li>
<li>When a unit takes enough fatigue, it is exhausted, and it may not move or shoot until it has rested sufficiently.</li>
</ul>
This last point brings out another state required in our model: Exhausted. If a unit is exhausted, it can do nothing else before resting. This state will take priority over Melee, Missile, or Move.<br />
<br />
Back to our Warrior unit. An ideal turn would be to move forward into missile range (6"), shoot at the enemy, and then retreat back out of the enemy's Melee range (6"), for a total of three actions. As this sequence causes fatigue, a fourth action for resting would make this a truly ideal turn. I can tell you now that committing four actions to a single unit is excessive in most <i>Saga</i> games, so we need to look at the next best option, which is move in, shoot, and move back in one turn, and rest on the alternate turn.<br />
<br />
If we put all this into an ordered rule base it might look like:<br />
<br />
<pre>State: Exhausted
rule: ...
State: In Melee Band (within any enemy unit's movement distance)
rule: ...
State: In Missile Band (movement distance + missile range to an enemy unit)
rule: if not overly fatigued
then move forward into missile range, shoot the enemy, and retreat out of the enemy's melee range
rule: if overly fatigued
then rest
State: In Move Band (farther than Melee and Missile bands)
rule: ...</pre>
<br />
This now covers the basic program of the unit for harassing the enemy with missile fire. We still do not have specifics about how the unit approaches or retreats, or if it fires at the enemy in any specific way (for example, to attempt to kill off a special character like a leader), but we have the basics on how it should act.<br />
<br />
As I indicated in the articles on Battle Card Systems and Hand Management, rule bases should be built up over time, rather than trying to do it all up front, at once. I will close this out for now and try and write up the skeleton for the programmed units for this scenario (i.e. all four units) and post them. Maybe then someone else can take them up and play a game with them and provide a critique.Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13667428218897971037noreply@blogger.com3