Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Surprise, Activation, and the Solo Wargamer

What 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.
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.
- Stuart Asquith, "The Partizan Press Guide to Solo Wargaming"
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:
  • "Rule set X uses a card activation method, so you are halfway there."
  • "You should choose rule set X because it uses cards to determine which side acts next. Solo rules should do that."
  • "You should first determine how the player side is going to deploy, then randomly determine how the opposing side should deploy its units."
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.

Surprise in Wargaming


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 and because it was a really good move? The last one I can think of - and it did not happen to me - was when AlphaGo made move 37 in game 2 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.

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.

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.

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?

Card Activation


Let's take card activation as an example. Is adding card activation for units conducive to solo play?

First, there are three types of card activation mechanisms. The first use cards to determine which side 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 specific unit. When the card is drawn, that specific unit then acts.

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?
  • Which side gets to act next?
  • Which unit gets to act next?
  • Which action(s) will the acting unit take?
  • How will the unit execute that action(s)?
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.

Which Side Gets to Act Next?


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.

Activation TypeResult
Card to determine sideYes
Card to determine side that chooses a unitYes
Card to determine a unitYes
IGO-UGOYes

Which Unit Gets to Act Next?


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.

Activation TypeResult
Card to determine sideNo
Card to determine side that chooses a unitNo
Card to determine a unitYes
IGO-UGONo

Which Action Will the Unit Take?


Activation TypeResult
Card to determine sideNo
Card to determine side that chooses a unitNo
Card to determine a unitNo
IGO-UGONo

How Will the Unit Execute Its Action?


Activation TypeResult
Card to determine sideNo
Card to determine side that chooses a unitNo
Card to determine a unitNo
IGO-UGONo

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).

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.

Variable Activation


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 or 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.

Even if you are using rules that allows units to move and 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.

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.

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.

Injecting Chance into Non-Player Decision-Making


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.
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.
- Donald Featherstone, "Donald Featherstone's Solo Wargaming"
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.

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.

6 comments:

  1. Hello Dale

    An interesting post. At first I thought it was quite provocative and I was going to right a long rebuttal to parts of it that made me shake my head. But re-reading it and I largely agree with you! I don't change the rules of any games to play solo and that would likely destabilise the interaction of the rules mechanisms. But I think there are rules that are more solo-friendly than others due to having mechanisms that allow for surprise. Solo-friendly may be a bit of a nebulous term but let us say theses games are easier to play solo due to rule mechanisms that allow for surprise (on both sides), possibly through chaos and uncertainly (these are consciously designed into the rules). So rules with card activation will be more solo-friendly (due to increased surprise) but they are not solo mechanisms in themselves. I wrote my own solo-friendly rules rather than change existing ones!

    One comment I would make is on your statement "But at the end of the day, playing the game is about exploiting the missteps your opponent makes while minimizing your own." Sort of. I more like to think of a game as maximising your advantages of your forces to compel the other play to react to your actions and so you control the game and hence its outcome. aka getting inside the opponents OODA loop.

    As a complete aside, I am playing a bit of THW Machinas (post apocalyptic car racing) that has NPC vehicles run completely randomly with very few tables and a few random dice rolls. While they don't make the best decisions for their cars, they certainly make some interesting ones at times! Pitting 3 NPC cars against one PC car can be tough. But the fun is in trying to make the best decision you can when it gets to you turn and the NPC cars are there just to make you life harder :-).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If your interpretation of surprise being "solo-friendly" is that it frees the player from making one less decision for the NPC, I would agree. But most of the friction that game designers put in do not model anything specific. They just know that there has to be some "fog of war" in there because commanders on the ground, in real life, don't have perfect information like we gamers do. But their probabilities are completely bogus. They think up (or liberate from another game) a cool mechanic that introduces chance and call it friction, fog of war, loss of command and control, etc. and generally the math is very high for a bad effect, but we only have X turns, so we need to inject it into the game somehow. Which is worse: a Warmaster/Black Powder/Blitzkrieg Commander-style game where you cannot move a significant portion of your forces for multiple turns or a game where every unit gets to move every turn. Neil Thomas' theory is that players are sufficiently well equipped to create their own chaos that there is no reason to give them more tools to do it.

      I was hoping someone would refute my "when has an opponent really surprised you in a game with a stunningly good move" argument. In the end, even if someone had such a story as move 37 of Alpha Go in Game 2, it is still exceedingly rare. So why is everyone seeking surprise as a goal in their games and rules?

      Delete
  2. (i had a long replay that got eaten by blogoger :-( but the gist of it was, yes, That is what i meant by solo-friendly. I am assuming some game mechanics are to simulate particular outcomes (not outputs) of real life and so have no direct correlation to real life outputs but model expected outcomes (e.g. DBA's stated goals). I have had no stunning good moves but good moves by opponents that have caused me to rethink o redirect my strategy. Surprise may depend on the simulation - I don't want much surprise in massed ancient battles but do in WW2 skirmish between a handful of soldiers as the latter, IMO, is harder to model without injecting some uncertainly into soldier actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To me a solo-friendly rule set is one that does not have any hidden information. Hidden information - managing a hand of cards, hidden units, bidding for initiative, etc. - is something that a solo player cannot play as written. If the hidden information plays any role in which units can act or react, or modifies the combat significantly, that is hard for the player to ignore or "forget". You can say that the mechanic creates "surprise", so this is a good example of injecting "surprise" into your game mechanics is not always "solo-friendly". This is why I grind my teeth when I read posts that imply any mechanic that adds surprise is good for solo play.

      I agree that adding fallibility into the unit/figure makes more sense the smaller the scale. I think most game designers would disagree with you that it is harder to model. (They just add a chance element and call it "friction".) I agree that it is harder to model accurately.

      Love the conversation Shaun. You still not on Facebook? (If so, smart man.)

      Delete
    2. I had to laugh as I had been thinking in the negative. I think of games with hidden information etc as solo-unfriendly rather than think of games without hidden information solo- friendly. I guess I assume all games are solo-friendly (as I can have fun playing both sides to the best of my ability) and then from there they become solo-unfriendly depending on the mechanisms. I had not though to define solo-friendly games as not solo-unfriendly but it does get rid of a double negative!

      I guess I have never come across surprise as a solo-friendly thing. You must frequent different forums to me :-) To be solo-friendly is any game where you can play both sides if you have to without hidden info , hidden card playing (e..g a Hannibal boardgame uses a card deck to play out combat - difficult to do solo) etc. Having a mechanism for some other side decision making its good. Two Hour Wargames is a good example where there are some other side actions are decided by the system; but there are still lots of decisions you need to make for the other side if playing solo.

      I think if you get two game designers in a room you will end up with three different opinions on game mechanics!

      I am on Facebook but only occasionally and mainly for the odd social event and catchup with the goings on of friends. I am on a few Facebook gaming sites but they don't come up in my feed, I am not on Facebook that often and too lazy to go the groups specifically. i need a special "Gaming feed". I do that with blogs - I use feedly for me not at work, and theoldreader for work related blogs.

      Delete
  3. Hello gents,
    Being a solo wargamer, I found this to be a very interesting conversation. I have tried various mechanisms developed by game designers to introduce fog of war, but I always got bogged down with the mechanism and not the game, and the result was rarely satisfying. I realized that I could play solo, and still surprise myself quite a lot. When I am the CinC for side A, I look at the situation in front of me and try to decide the best tactics. Then for side B, I do the same. I'm not worried that I "know" what the other side will do, because with a few simple mechanisms in use, he may not be able to do it no matter how hard he tries. Also, all combat resolution mechanisms have some unpredictably to them (the weaker unit can defeat the stronger unit with a lucky dice throw for example. As stuff happens, it becomes less predictable. I guess I'm OK in my own skin as a solo wargamer and don't need too many artificial surprise mechanisms.

    However, there are a few fog of war creators that I do like:

    1. DBA use of simple D6 and PIP's. Almost a surprise with every turn and so simple. Useful in other periods too.
    2. Solo DBA. Various versions, but the one element I like the best is the fact that before every side's turn, a roll of the dice will set the "mood" for that turn - Aggressive, Cautious, Defensive. The big honcho CinC says I as field general need to proceed in that manner this turn, and I must do my best. Fun, without bogging you down with tables, etc.
    3. For campaigns, I like William Sylvester's SCMR (Solo Campaign Mobilization Rules) in his bool Solo Wargaming Guide. Also for campaigns, Bob Cordery's army activation rules (uses a card deck) can add a lot of spice, although it may not work for every type of campaign.

    Finally, and I wish I could recall the author of this quote, but when a decision to do A or B presents itself, "let the dice decide".

    I'd love to know if you have any clever tricks that work for you.

    Dale

    ReplyDelete