Playing Against Baron Babbage

In my last blog post 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.

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.

Scenarios from One-Hour Wargames

On my other blog I showed a gameboard that I created for a single scenario in the book One-Hour Wargames. 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.

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 Programmed Wargames Scenarios. 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.

For this experiment I am choosing to write a programmed opponent for scenario #8 (Melee) from One-Hour Wargames. Specifically, I am writing it for the Red Army (Defender) forces.

Rules from One-Hour Wargames

I went down this path before – scoping the program to a game system (Saga in one case and Rally Around the King in another) – and generally speaking, it works. Playing Against Mr Babbage is scoped to the game mechanics of The Men Who Would Be Kings after all.

For my first experiment I decided to use One-Hour Wargames 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 act with any or all 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.

For this experiment I am choosing the One-Hour Wargames rules for my programmed opponent.

Genre from One-Hour Wargames

Another aspect of One-Hour Wargames 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.

For this experiment I am writing a programmed opponent to use in the Medieval rules of One-Hour Wargames.

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.

Program for Medieval Red Army, Scenario #8, One-Hour Wargames Rules

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.

All instructions will use the following grid reference system.

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.

Hill Deployment

Force Selection

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.

Force Placement

One unit will be placed at D3 facing to the left (East) and the other at D4 facing South.

Rationale

• 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.
• 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.
• Despite the name Levy are not really that bad. They hit better than Archers in melee (and you will be in melee pretty quickly).
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Road Deployment

Force Selection

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.

Force Placement

If available, move first with: Knights, Levy, Men-at-Arms, then Archers.

Rationale

• As you have more distance to cover to reach the hill, your fastest units should be deployed on the road.
• Knights are at the fore so they are not delayed in reaching the hill by slower units.
• 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.

Right Flank Deployment

The two remaining units will be deployed here.

Operating Rules

These guide your decisions on moving and fighting with Red Army units. 

1. 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.)
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Archers may not move off of the South row of squares/more than 6" from the South edge.

My Ask

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?

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.