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 Type	Result
Card to determine side	Yes
Card to determine side that chooses a unit	Yes
Card to determine a unit	Yes
IGO-UGO	Yes

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 Type	Result
Card to determine side	No
Card to determine side that chooses a unit	No
Card to determine a unit	Yes
IGO-UGO	No

Which Action Will the Unit Take?

Activation Type	Result
Card to determine side	No
Card to determine side that chooses a unit	No
Card to determine a unit	No
IGO-UGO	No

How Will the Unit Execute Its Action?

Activation Type	Result
Card to determine side	No
Card to determine side that chooses a unit	No
Card to determine a unit	No
IGO-UGO	No

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.