Haywire Rules - A Discussion

 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).

Haywire

In this post I want to discuss the solo mechanics in the rule Haywire, which are free and in beta. 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 this video play 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.

How is the Scenario Determined?

Haywire 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.

What the rules do not 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?

Haywire is the same in that it does not specify the terrain at all. 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).

How is the Mission Determined?

One thing that most rules lack are good missions, included with the rules. Haywire comes with 23 (to start with, as this is still beta).

There are a number of card decks that you use in Haywire and one of them is the Operations 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.

Let's start by discussing a couple of example missions.

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.

This mission, which was the one played in the video, calls for finding and eliminating the enemy leader.

How are the Opposing Forces Selected?

There are three "factions" defined in Haywire: (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.

Haywire bills itself as using classes, 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 Insurgent faction has the profiles Fighter, Gunner, Sniper, Rocketeer, True Believer (complete with bomb vest), Advisor, Executioner, and Cell Leader.

The next step is to create the Threat deck. Included in the game are two 1 Enemy, four 2 Enemies, four 3 Enemies, one 3 Enemies, 1 Leader, four Nothing, and four Civilian cards. You remove the one 3 Enemies, 1 Leader 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 3 Enemies, 1 Leader card, become the threat deck.

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.

How are the Opposing Forces' Movement Determined?

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.

Threat Token Before the Alarm is Raised

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.

Although random movement may seem rather nonsensical – guards don't walk in a different direction every 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.

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 Insurgent 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.)

Threat Token After the Alarm is Raised

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.

Enemy Figures Before the Alarm is Raised

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) and for the alarm to not have been raised. In those rare circumstances the procedure is actually undefined.

As you can see in the image above, each Insurgent 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.

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.

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.)

Enemy Figures After the Alarm is Raised

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 True Believer 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.

Although simple, simple is good. There is enough of a foundation there if you want to add more factors to the program.

Summary

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!

Initiative Bidding in Undaunted Normandy

Undaunted: Normandy (UN) 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.

UN has two game mechanics that make solo play generally harder. I wrote this blog post to discuss how I overcome these obstacles.

The first obstacle is card hand management. Actually UN 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.

In general, I play one side of UN 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.

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.

The player who bids using a higher numbered card wins initiative and plays first.

So the questions are:

• How do I determine which card to play for the non-player side?
• How do I keep the player from knowing the other cards in the hand of the non-player?

I solved this pretty readily by altering the Draw Phase of the turn sequence slightly:

1. The player side draws their four cards as normally done.
2. The player decides which of the four cards will be used for the initiative bid.
3. The player draws the top card of the non-player deck. That card will be used for the non-player initiative bid.
4. The higher card value wins the bid, as normal. However, if the values are tied the non-player always wins the tie.
5. 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.

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.

In general I find UN 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.

Using Card Activations Without Breaking IGO-UGO Rules

As 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 X solo. Do you have any tips or ideas to do that?"

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 Black Ops, by Guy Bowers, editor of Wargames, Soldiers, and Strategy magazine.

Ironically, the solo card set Hostile: Tactical A. I. (HTAI) was written specifically for playing the defenders in Black Ops scenarios, according to the author of HTAI. (I did a two part play through and a review of HTAI a few posts back. Recommended.)

Back to the subject, Black Ops 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 Tin Soldiers in Action (TSIA) 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 only 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.

Let's say the non-player forces consist of the following units. Assign a card to each one.

• Orc General: King of Spades
• Orc Bodyguard: Jack of Spades
• Orc Witch: Queen of Spades
• Orc Spears: 10 of Spades
• Orc Swords: 9 of Spades
• Goblin Bows: 8 of Spades
• Goblin Wolf Riders: 7 of Spades

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.

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.

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.

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. Black Ops, like many rules, provide a mechanic to deal with that. In Black Ops 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."

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.

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 my last post 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.

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.

Hostile Tactical A.I. Review – Part 2

This is part 2 of my review of Hostile Tactical A.I. (HTAI). You can find part 1 here.

Before I get started with the test game I need to make one other point about the Hostile Tactical A.I. (HTAI) 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.

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:

• Rifle Leader
• Rifle Sniper
• Rifle Soldier (x2)
• Line Leader
• Line Brawler
• Line Soldier (x5)

An interesting aspect of One-Hour Skirmish Wargames (OHSW) 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)?

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.

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.

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 OHSW and has nothing to do with HTAI.

Setup

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Note, in the commentary below, items in italics indicates text from the HTAI 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 HTAI card looks like.

At the top, in the blue band, is the Reaction order on the left and the shard/card designation on the right.

In the middle (white) section are the main orders. The Patrol order is for when the programmed model is unaware of the enemy while the Attack 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 Pace is the keyword for the Patrol order and Hostile is the keyword for the Attack order.

The bottom (black) section has three pieces of information: the compass, an enemy selection descriptor, and two movement dice.

The compass is largely used for order that indicate direction and not an enemy, such as the Flank order. The enemy selection descriptor, in this example the keyword Furthest, 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.

Finally the movement dice indicate how aggressive a move will be. If 1D6 is indicated, the red die is used. If 2D6 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 2D6 and either die is a '6', the model will take an additional Move action.

Turn 1

British won initiative and drew 11 AP.

Drew the Ace of Clubs, so that identified the Soldier to act.



Another card was drawn to determine the action.

The card indicated under the Attack section that it was to be a Defensive order, moving 1D6 towards the player. The rule for Defensive 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 (1D6 or 2D6) to determine the actual movement distance, but rather the number of Move actions it will take, 1D6 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.)

A Joker was drawn during combat resolution, ending the turn. Here is the situation at the end of the turn.

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 discussions with the author of OHSW, I found out that Jokers are ignored during the End-of-Turn activities (casualty resolution and morale check) and the deck is not re-shuffled between turns, so there are fewer Jokers going into subsequent turns, generally making them longer.

Both sides passed morale and there were no casualties to resolve.

Turn 2

French won initiative and drew 12 AP.

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.

Note that I am not trying not to go into much depth for the French as this is more about TSIA than OHSW.

British drew 12 AP.

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 Hostile: 2D6 towards player. 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.



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!

The King of Hearts was drawn next, indicating it was the Soldier by the Rifle, directly in front of the charging French Cavalryman.



His order was React: *, meaning another card was drawn to determine the Reaction order. Reaction orders tend to be 'stronger' or 'special'. In this case I drew the Rally reaction.



The rules for a Rally reaction are to recover or help fallen comrade within 2D6. As we saw in the first test game of OHSW, 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.

French won initiative and drew 4 AP.

The French Cavalryman charged the British Rifle and cut him down in close combat.

British drew 4 AP.

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 Defensive: 1D6 towards Objective. As he was at the objective (the cannon) that meant no move was necessary. He was also in cover, which Defensive 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 Furthest.

As an aside, I like using the card for this. Getting Closest meant he would have been tracking the movement of the Cavalryman, while Furthest 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.

Note, however, that the compass (also a part of the directional indicator) contained an asterisk, so a Reaction order had to be taken first. And of course it was a Charge!, 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.

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 Hostile: 2D6 towards Objective, so it was clear that I had to take the Move action.

On reviewing this it appears that I had one more AP remaining, so I should have drawn for another model to act. Oh well.

French won initiative and drew 9 AP.

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.

The first charge, however, resulted in the death of the French Cavalryman. That feisty Soldier with the Rally reaction that went to cover his downed comrade was determined! So much for my plans.

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.

Another French soldier fired at the 'berserker' British Soldier and, despite having a shot against cover, downed him also.

The final French AP was spent advancing a French Soldier towards the cannon.

As a note, there were at that point two British casualties and three downed, while the French had one casualty and two downed.

British drew 9 AP. (What is it with these duplicate AP draws against two decks!?!)

Drawing the King of Spades the British Line Sergeant finally got to act. His orders were to Flank: 2D6, 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.

French won initiative and drew 8 AP.

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.

British drew 10 AP.

The British Line Sergeant again got to act, He drew the order Hostile: 2D6 towards Objective. 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.

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 Closest, but with an asterisk, so I needed to determine the Reaction order. I drew Double Time, which read enemy takes two Moves in a row. 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.)

After much card flipping I finally got the Queen of Spades, the Rifle Sergeant, who drew the order Defensive: 1D6 towards Objective, with a Reaction order of Secondary. Secondary 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.

French won initiative and drew 7 AP.

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.

Finally, another French Soldier advanced forward to put pressure on the British holding the cannon.

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.

British won initiative (finally) and drew 12 AP.

A Rifleman on the left-center got to act, drawing the order Retreat: 2D6 (move '3', so only one Move action) towards cover. Note that a Retreat 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!)

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 Flank: 2D6 order. The move indicated three Move actions (because a '6' was in the move dice), direction of East! I guess he saw the threat to his right. He fired at the Weakest 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.

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.

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.

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).

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 HTAI, not OHSW, 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.)

Initial Thoughts

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.

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.) HTAI does pretty well in providing interesting orders for your non-player troops.

Rules Ratings

Using the review system from before, here are the game ratings for Hostile: Tactical A.I. (HTAI).

Drama – do the rules create tension during play?

Because we are dealing with just what HTAI adds to rules, I would say that sometimes HTAI 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.

These rules rate 2 out of 5 in Drama.

Uncertainty – are there enough elements that introduce uncertainty into the game?

Because HTAI 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. HTAI 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 HTAI.

These rules rate 5 out of 5 in Uncertainty.

Engaging – do the rules allow the player to make meaningful decisions that lead to consequences?

The whole point of this product is to take as many of the decisions for the programmed side away 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 Lack of Administration. 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.

These rules rate 4 out of 5 in Lack of Administration.

Unobtrusiveness – do the rules get in the way?

No, unless you use HTAI 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.)

The most obtrusive part is the rules for the keywords and model selection (due to card assignments).

These rules rate 3 out of 5 in Unobtrusiveness.

Heads Up – are the rules playable without frequent reference to a quick reference sheet?

Maybe as you use HTAI 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.

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 HTAI.

These rules rate 3 out of 5 in Heads Up.

Appropriately Flavored – do the rules 'feel' like they represent the period or genre being played?

HTAI is not intended to represent any period or genre, nor is it supposed to add flavor.

These rules are not rated in Appropriately Flavored.

Scalable – can the rules be scaled up or down – in terms of figures or number of units played – from a 'normal' game?

Here, I am changing the definition of the rating a bit. I want to address whether HTAI can be used for larger unit sizes or not. Currently, HTAI 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.

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 Defensive: 1D6 move into cover is drawn as opposed to Hostile: 1D6, 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.

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.

Given the amount of interpretation that would be required to accommodate other scales, I would have to rate it low.

These rules rate 2 out of 5 in Scalable.

Lacks Fiddly Geometry – do the rules require fiddly measurements or angles?

HTAI adds no elements of measurement or line of sight, etc.

These rules are not rated in Fiddly Geometry.

Tournament Tight™ Rules – are the rules clear and comprehensive, or do the players need to 'fill in the blanks'?

The whole point of HTAI 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.

These rules rate 3 out of 5 in Tournament Tight™ Rules.

Solo Suitability – do the rules have elements conducive to solo play?

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.

These rules rate 5 out of 5 in Solo Suitability.

Component Quality – are the components provided made with quality?

This is a new rating, meant primarily for board games and books, which addresses the quality of the physical components.

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.

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.

There are several misspellings in the text of the cards and rules, indicating it needs a better editor. (Like my blog.)

These rules rate 3 out of 5 in Component Quality.

Summary

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. HTAI 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.

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.

Recommended.

Hostile Tactical A.I. Review – Part 1

Hostile Tactical A.I. (HTAI) 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.

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.

Concept

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. HTAI gives you mechanics to solve that question also.

Included with the deck of 72 cards are three, double-sided rules cards, and three "shard" cards.

The Game Cards

The above image shows some sample cards. At the top left is a Reaction Order.

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.

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).

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.

As you can see, it is pretty basic, and every probability is baked into the cards.

Using the Game Cards

There is a tutorial PDF on BoardgameGeek 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.

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.

Shards

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.

Selecting a Model

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? HTAI jumps straight into solving the second issue (what does that model do), but it only lightly touches upon the first.

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.

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.

In essence, the exact method is up to you, including not randomizing the choice at all.

Toolkit Not a Game

The important thing to recognize is that HTAI 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.

Test Game

Before I give my rating on HTAI 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 HTAI with One-Hour Skirmish Wargames (OHSW), which I recently reviewed on my other blog. (Part One, Part Two, Follow-Up) It might help to read at least Part One in order to understand the OHSW rules as essentially I will be integrating HTAI and OHSW together.

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 HTAI into actions for the British side in OHSW.

Integration Notes

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 HTAI card at the start of each British Action Phase to determine which model will take action. Then based on the orders in HTAI, it will consume a certain number of OHSW action points (AP). If there are points remaining I would then draw an additional HTAI 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.

Given the ground scale of OHSW 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 HTAI 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.)

Movement distances in OHSW 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, OHSW 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.

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.

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.

Well that should cover it for now. The next post will go into playing the game using HTAI as the 'artificial intelligence' for the British player in a scenario using the OHSW rules.

Solo Wargaming with Hand Management Systems (5)

Continuing with the game.

German Turn 5 – I play the Move Out! card, allowing me to order four infantry units in any section. This gives me the opportunity to continue pressing on the right flank and re-engaging in the center. Out of six dice rolled, only one was a hit and four were retreats! Boy these French like to run...

French Turn 5 – At this point the center is (again) not secured, but the French have no center cards, only right flank and a Direct from HQ, which allows the player to order four units in any section. Direct from HQ it is then.

Looking at the picture above, which shows the French positions at the end of the turn, only one French unit is out of position, and that is the unit with three figures that had just retreated. All others are either one figure, and therefore must be kept out of danger, or in terrain and supporting a center defense, so that leaves three orders for the secondary objective – securing the left flank.

The French did a little better, driving back two German units and inflicting two hits.

German Turn 6 – The Germans had a lucky draw and were able to get a Direct from HQ card also. The question was whether to use it, or to use Medics and Mechanics on the German infantry reduced to two figures. I went with keeping up the pressure and using Direct from HQ. The Germans were able to do much better this turn, inflicting two hits (reducing one unit down to a single figure) and forcing a retreat.

Note that the picture to the right shows a corrected retreat. The FR unit should have retreated three hexes to end on the hex straddling the left and center sections. Why? There is now a unit on the left flank that is down to one figure, so that unit must move, according to the response rules. Because the French has been close assaulted, their hand had already been drawn and it consisted of Attack Center (3), Armor Assault, Recon Left (1), and Assault Left (All). As there are no multi-section cards, and a left flank card had to be played, retreating to a left/center hex, rather than staying in a center hex, allowed one more unit to be ordered with the card that had to be played. Something to keep in mind as both a player, and something to add to the programmed response rules.

French Turn 6 – By playing the Assault Left card the French get to order four units (although one unit effectively does nothing).  The French must be running out of bullets, however, as all they do is force the Germans to retreat; they inflict no hits.

At this point the French are still leading 1-0 and have been anything other than a cake walk for the player (me). Although four separate FR units are down to one figure, only one is really within reach of the Germans. At this point I will draw the curtain to a close on the game and summarize.

By the way, the Germans did finally win, 4-1. The Medics and Mechanics gave one German unit a new life when it was cut down to one figure. In a small unit count game like this, that card is very powerful. In addition, the French dice simply failed them. The Germans slowly chewed through all of the FR units hiding in the rear with one figure remaining. Despite the score being so wide, one German unit was reduced to one, but revived with the Medics and Mechanics card while a second German unit was reduced to one figure and another to two figures, so they were not looking too healthy. On a critical turn it was the choice between running away with a single figure FR unit or using an Air Power card to try and whittle down two German units (but there was no chance to destroy them both). Had both units been one or two figures each...

Summary

Overall, I liked the Flush the Hand method for determining the programmed opponent's hand. It kept me wondering if the French would ever get the Ambush! card when I was close assaulting. As we got farther down the deck, I started becoming more reluctant to throw units with only two figures into close assault, so it kept up the suspense for me too.

I think the most surprising part for me was the use of a battle plan. So many people play battle card driven, and similar, forms of games wholly reactive. The thinking is generally along the lines of "I cannot control what cards I get, so why make a plan that relies on something I cannot control, so I will just react to the cards, dice, and my opponent's moves." I think planning is something lacking in so many games today. Most command and control systems don't require long-term planning and, like battle card drive systems, players just do whatever is the optimal move for that particular turn. The best players certainly think several turns down the road, but I think few players have real battle plans prior to starting their games.

Maybe it was my wargaming "upbringing". I played Column, Line, and Square as a kid, which was a written order, simultaneous movement game with movement rates low enough that having reserves and a plan actually meant something. What I found having a battle plan and using it for the programmed opponent was that the non-player side actually felt more consistent than I did! Also, I did not catch myself thinking "well, I know that the opponent is programmed to act a certain way in these conditions, so here is how I can track its stupid and predictable movement."

I'm not saying that I had a brilliant plan for the opponent, but at least it was a plan towards a consistent goal. I recently read that one solo gamer would write down the possible moves of an opponent, assign probabilities, roll a die for the choice, but keep adding more information and, over time, the "AI" would get better. All that player was doing was developing a rule base governing how to play (what units to choose and what move to make when chosen, for example), but instead of forcing a strict order to executing the rules, assigning probabilities so that the most logical – one that would have been assigned a higher precedence in a true rule-based decision making system – would occur more frequently. In both cases, however, the player develops choices, assigns a qualitative value to each choice, and records those decisions so that the process becomes less "administrative" with each game.

Well, I hope you have enjoyed a peek into my thinking process, and can glean some use of this battle report. Next, I am thinking about looking at reaction systems, such as those developed by Two Hour Games (e.g. Rally Round the King, 5150, NUTS!, etc.).