Review of Adjutant Introuvable and Test Game

Adjutant Introuvable by Nic Birt is billed as an "Auto Strategy System for Miniature Wargames". 

Adjustant Introuvable (AI) aims to provide a strategy (the overall plan) to the absent opponent when engaging in solo wargames. AI attempts to maintain a reactive and dynamic plan throughout the battle through some general tactical guidance.

Strategy is fairly generic across historical military periods and therefore this system is appropriate for most ages from ancient to modern. However, the tactics have changed … and for this reason the tactical level of AI is provided in simple generic terms that will require interpretation to suite (sic) particular armies.

So now we understand what the rules are trying to accomplish, let's review what I think a good programmed opponent provide. Generally speaking, it must answer these four questions:

• Which side gets to act next?
• Which unit gets to act next?
• Which actions will the acting unit take?
• How will the acting unit execute those actions?

As previously noted, so rules answer these questions automatically, without the use of special "solo gaming" mechanisms. For example, if you are using rules that are IGO-UGO the answer to the question "Which side gets to act next?" is taken care of. Whatever side is the active side gets to act next until their turn is complete.

For games where the turn sequence consists of phases where all units perform the same actions at once, in any order the player likes (most IGO-UGO rules), the question of "Which unit gets to act next?" is also generally moot. This usually only comes up when two units are trying to move through the same physical space, in which the player generally moves the unit that can move the farthest first, so its movement is not blocked by the slower unit.

For rules where a unit can move, fire, and conduct close combat all in a single turn, the question "Which actions will the acting unit take?" tends to be less critical of a decision than in rules where, say, a unit can only move or fire. Nonetheless, this is where the programmed opponent starts to come into play as you need to know what the objective the unit is trying to accomplish.

Finally, few solo game systems answer the last question. In order to specify "How will the acting unit execute those actions?" they likely need to be written specifically for the rules you are using and possibly even the scenario and side you are playing. (The new Undaunted: Reinforcements, which I hope to be reviewing and testing here soon, would be an example.)

Before we take a look at how AI handles these questions, we note that "AI has been designed to work with wargame rule systems that operate with an alternating turn sequence (one side moves, then the opponent moves, and repeat). It is assumed the average game length will be between 6 and 12 of these double turns. For an effective use of the strategy plans it is best to have at least 10 units that are deployed by the AI side." For this reason I will be using the rules One-Hour Wargames (OHW), which I have reviewed here, only modified for using a 6" square grid.

Setup

The first task is to divide the board into a three-by-three grid. Given that out board is already nicely divided into a six-by-six grid, the AI grid cell will contain four cells of the board. Note that this makes counting terrain values (see later) much easier.

Set up the battlefield as normal and deploy the player's forces while also providing orders for the first turn. If the player wishes to simply react to the programmed opponent then the player may not make any moves for the first two turns.

In this test game I have decided to play the defending side in a battle similar to Guilford Courthouse, of the American War of Independence. The Patriots are therefore initially passive, firing at the advancing British, so counting them as passive seems the better option.

AI provides nine strategy cards, which outline the plan for how the programmed opponent will conduct battlefield operations (at a high level). The rules direct you to draw three randomly and then perform a calculation for each strategy to determine which of the three to use. The strategies are named: Equal Attack; Center Attack; Left Flank Attack; Right Flank Attack; Envelop From Left; Envelop From Right; Oblique Left Attack; Oblique Right Attack; and Ambush. I chose randomly and drew Envelop From Left, Envelop From Right; and Center Attack.

The strategy calculation consists of looking at the aggressiveness of the strategy on the left, center, and right and comparing it to the terrain in the left, center, and right. Here is what the board looks like, set up.

As shown in the image above, the map contains a grid for easy reference to terrain, units, movement, and combat.

• E1 contains a Town. (In this scale, it is a Courthouse and outbuildings.)
• B2 contains the West side of a Hill and a Patriot Infantry unit with 15 hits remaining.
• C2 contains the East side of a Hill and a Patriot Infantry unit with 15 hits remaining.
• D2 contains a Patriot Artillery unit with 15 hits remaining.
• E2 contains the North side of a Plowed Field.
• F2 contains a Patriot Cavalry unit with 15 hits remaining.
• E3 contains the South side of a Plowed Field.
• A4 contains the West side of a Woods.
• B4 contains the East side of a Woods and a Patriot Skirmisher (Rifle) unit with 10 hits remaining.
• C4 contains a Stone Wall and a Patriot Infantry (Militia) unit with 10 hits remaining.
• D4 contains a Stone Wall and a Patriot Infantry (Militia) unit with 10 hits remaining.
• E4 contains a Woods and a Patriot Skirmisher unit with 10 hits remaining.

With the terrain set up and the player's units deployed, it is time to determine which strategy AI will use. You start by calculating the strength of each strategy versus the terrain it is facing. Each strategy card shows whether the left, center, and right sectors (indicated by the red grid) are moving rapidly, advancing, ambushing, or holding. You use a table that compares that strategy to the terrain found in that sector to derive a score, which is then combined to determine how effective the strategy is to this scenario. The highest score of the three selected strategies is the strategy that the programmed opponent will use.

Without going into the details of the formulas (that is what the $5 price is for), the Envelop From Left strategy calls for a rapid advance on the left, holding in the center, and an advance on the right. The Envelop From Right is the mirror to that. Finally, Center Attack is an advance on the left and right and a rapid advance in the center. The significance of the movement (hold, advance, etc.) is how far through the board the program intends to advance. Hold only considers the programmed opponent's baseline ares (rows 5 and 6 in this case). Advance considers up through no man's land (rows 3 through 6), and rapid advance considers all rows in the sector. Let's compare the scores.

Envelop From Left

The Rapid Advance on the left starts (reading from the opponent's baseline) with Open terrain (0 points), then moves through the Woods (-1 point), then ends in Hill terrain (-1 point) for a total of -2 points.

The Hold action in the center only considers the Open terrain on its baseline, which gives it a score of -1.

The Advance on the right scores 0 points for the Open terrain and -1 for the Woods in no man's land, for a total of -1.

After scoring each sector a random factor of 0-3 points is added for a total. This strategy earned a -3 (after rolling +1 point for the random factor).

Envelope From Right

I will condense these down to Left -1, Center -1, and Right -2, Random 0 for a total of -4.

Center Attack

Left -1, Center -2, Right -1, Random +1 for a total of -3.

Because Envelop From Left and Center Attack are tied, there would normally be a roll off. However, I have decided to go with a Center Attack because Woods in OHW are essentially impassable terrain to five of the six units that the British have, thus attacking troops would have to flow through to the center, making this a Center Attack of sorts anyway.

With the strategy decided we now need to deploy the units to either the left flank, center, right flank, or the reserves. Troops are categorized as either Regular, Mobile, or Support. This is cross-referenced with the mission (Advance, Rapid Advance, Hold, or Ambush) and the target terrain (the terrain in the grid indicated by the mission). This yields a die roll to indicate if the unit is deployed in that sector or not.

Essentially you are rolling a die for each unit to determine if it is assigned to a specific mission, rolling for them in the order of Ambush, Rapid Advance, Advance, and Hold. Any units not assigned to those missions are placed in the Reserve.

So I have four Infantry, one Cavalry, and one Skirmisher. Starting with the Infantry (Regular) and rolling to assign to the Rapid Advance in the Center, with the target terrain of the Hill, I would need a 5+ to have a unit assigned. I roll 2, 2, 3, 5 so one Infantry unit is assigned to the Center. Next rolling for the Cavalry and Skirmisher (Mobile), still for the Center, I would need 4+ to have a unit assigned. I roll 2, 3 so neither is assigned.

Now I do the same for the Left, which is an Advance to the Woods. Infantry needs a 4+ and Mobile needs a 6. Because one Infantry is already assigned to the Center, I only have three Infantry remaining to assign. I roll 1, 1, 6 so one Infantry is assigned. I roll 5, 5 so no Mobile is assigned to the Left.

Finally I do the Right, which is an Advance to the Woods. Only two Infantry to assign and I roll 3, 6 so one gets assigned to the Right. I roll 2, 6 for the Mobile and the Cavalry gets assigned to the Right. (I rolled off to see whether it was the Skirmisher or the Cavalry.)

The remaining Infantry and Skirmisher unit gets assigned to the Reserve, which according to the strategy card, is behind the Center.

So Now What?

Now, it is time to start fighting the battle. When it is their time to act each mission force (sector) will roll a die, cross reference it to their mission, add or subtract 1 based on how well the mission is going, and get a Tactic to use for that turn. (Troops in the Reserve will deploy on a 5+.) The tactics are as follows.

• Charge - move rapidly towards objective, initiate combat whenever a win is possible, and bypass strong opposition.
• Engage - move steadily toward objective, initiate combat only when favorable results are probable.
• Probe - move cautiously, initiate limited disruptive combat when favorable result is most likely.
• React - hold ground, initiate combat only against weakened or breaking opponent.
• Relieve - retire to advantage, make defensive formations and positions.

These tactics are listed on each strategy card, along with the die rolls needed for each action.

Some of these will be hard to interpret, especially where in this scenario the programmed opponent starts within musket range of my troops. Here is the final setup.

As you can see, two of the British Infantry are Elite, and thus have 20 hits remaining, while all other units have 15 hits remaining.

There is a tendency in rules to make militia and elite troops overly weak or strong, in comparison to regular troops. For example, I have seen them being given modifiers to hit, i.e. the ability to inflict casualties, while simultaneously giving them morale modifiers, i.e. the ability to withstand casualties. Although many would say this is correct, I believe it is not in that the accuracy of the musket is horrendous (especially after fouling from a few shots) and thus the difference in the three types to inflict casualties is negligible. To me, the best way to represent quality of troops is to rate their ability to stay combat effective, which in terms of OHW, it the number of hits it can sustain.

Turn 1

The British start first. Looking at my strategy card the Center will Charge on a 4+, Engage on a 1-3, and Probe on a 0-. This is a D6 roll with a -1 because it is one British (Elite) Infantry against two Patriot (Militia) Infantry behind cover. I roll a 1 making it 0, thus the British decide to stand and fire.

On the left and right flanks they are advancing, so the cards says to Engage on a 5+, Probe on a 2-4, and React on a 1-. Both the left and right flanks get a Probe result. The Infantry will stand and fire while the Cavalry will hold in place.

Because this is the first turn, there is no roll for reinforcements.

As stated earlier, the best solo systems answer all four questions in some way. What action the units will take has been answered (firing instead of moving, for all three cases), but the answer to the last question, which is how to execute the action, i.e. which unit do I fire at, may not be clear. The rules do state that the combat should have a "favorable result". So, what is that?

In OHW I often analyze combat in terms of Average Turns to Eliminate (ATE), or the number of turns, on average, it takes to eliminate the enemy unit. In this case the British Infantry roll 1D6 to determine the number of hits inflicted on the enemy, so 3.5 hits per turn. Units in cover, such as in Woods or behind a Stone Wall, take 1/2 the hits, rounded up. If the target has 15 hits then Infantry's ATE is 5 if the target is not in cover and 8 if the target is.

In the case of the left flank Infantry firing, both targets in range are in cover so both are equally valid. One could next look at the hits remaining (essentially the ATE) to determine the weakest target, and thus the most vulnerable and therefore the higher chance of success. Again, both targets have the same number of hits, so the ATE is tied. At this point either target is equally valid and the rules are thus silent on selection, so presumably a die roll would be in order. However, one additional difference to not is which target can inflict more damage (thus making them more of a threat), i.e. what is the target's ATE against you. In this case the Patriot (Militia) Infantry is lower and therefore the greatest threat. That said, I am going to shoot straight forward and into the sector where my mission is located.

On the right flank the case is largely the same: fire at a Skirmisher in the Woods or an Infantry behind a Stone Wall? The difference is that if the Infantry fires on the enemy Infantry, it is potentially doubling up its fire against that target.

Here is the result of the British first turn.

Remember, because I did not write order before the British set up, I am hampered from making any moves for turn 1 and 2, which is acceptable as I am simply going to fire at the attacking British. Here is the end of turn 1.

While the Skirmishers on the left muffed their shot, the right taught the enemy Infantry to ignore it at its own peril. The two Militia Infantry in the center absolutely pounded the center British Infantry. Had it not been an elite unit (starting with 20 hits), it would now be within one good die roll of being eliminated.

Turn 2

As with the first turn, each sector needs to roll its tactics, and reinforcements can be rolled for.

Left - Probe; Center - Charge; Right - Engage; Reserve - no reinforcements.

The Center charges as the British realize that they cannot afford to slug it out with the two Militia units. Because it moves forward, the British Infantry moving to D5 now blocks the Infantry in E6 from firing on the Militia in D4.

On the Right the Cavalry moves forward. If it moved to F4 it risks being fired upon by the Artillery and charged by the enemy Cavalry, so it only moves to F5.

This is the last turn in which the Patriots cannot react, so all they do is fire.

The British Grenadiers in D5 are looking pretty bad. With it being 'outnumbered', it is unlikely to be able to roll a 'Charge' result. This is one thing I have a criticism about with chance-oriented programs. It sometimes feels like 'morale' is baked into the results. Shouldn't the core rules cover morale, rather than the solo mechanics?

Turn 3

As with last turn, each sector needs to roll its tactics, and reinforcements can be rolled for.

Left - Engage; Center - Charge; Right - React; Reserve - no reinforcements.

The British on the left and right flanks continue to fire, but the cavalry stands. The British Grenadiers in the center rolled well and can continue the charge. Had they rolled less, they would have stood and fired, which would have been a bad result.

This was a good turn for the British. Both the Infantry units on the left and right flanks scored a '6', resulting in 3 hits each on the Patriot Skirmish units. The British Grenadiers charged, inflicting a single hit and forcing the Patriot Militia to retreat.

Note: British Infantry being able to charge into hand-to-hand combat and forcing Patriot Infantry and Skirmishers to retreat from hand-to-hand combat is not a normal rule for the OHW Horse and Musket rules, but is added by my AWI variant.

Now that the first two turns are up, I can finally order my Patriot units freely. At this point, however, I am going to leave the battle report. The idea was to test the AI system and see it in action.

Summary

Let me start by saying these rules are a mere $5, can be purchased online, and are delivered as a PDF. It is value for money. All of that said, to me it is an 'idea generator' rather than a full blown system of a programmed opponent. I see that these sort of systems can cover the following mechanics: overall battle plan; distribution of forces; unit deployment; unit mission; and unit tactics.

Overall Battle Plan

Basically the goal is to help the player come up with a basic strategy for the programmed opponent. AI does this providing you nine basic battle plans. Providing you a formula to calculate the best attack strategy based on terrain is very valuable. If fact, I think that is the singular best idea in these rules. For once a system takes terrain into account, giving it a value. Most points systems, for example, do not take the value of terrain into account, unless it is man-made like an entrenchment or a fortification. AI looks at the terrain within reach of your mission (how deep onto the battlefield you intend to take) and evaluates the difficulty of achieving it.

The only issue I take with the formula is that there are certain unstated value judgments built into that formula. For example, one element that kept coming up while using AI was that the rules I was using, OHW, does not allow most units to enter woods at all. Many rules take the approach that woods slow movement and provide cover, so the idea that you can attack a woods with any unit is somewhat universal. If you are using something like OHW where you can shoot at units defending a woods, but can never take it, the formulation should actually be harsher for the woods being present.

In the example above, if your mission is to rapidly advance on the left, i.e. advance to the enemy's row, the presence of the woods in row 2 makes this impossible if, say, your line infantry, cavalry, and artillery cannot pass through the woods and only your light infantry can. You could put infantry units in row 3 to shoot out the defenders, but at some point your infantry, cavalry, and artillery will have to bypass the woods through the center, while your light infantry moves in to occupy the woods, keeping the enemy light infantry out while your other forces pass by through the center.

So, is it perfect? No. It is naturally generic. That is why I say that these rules are great as a starting point, a template from which to build a more specific program that meet your scenario, forces, and rules needs and restrictions.

One final note: I am not sure why the author wants you to randomly select three possible battle plans, calculate the most effective one, and then use that, rather than having you calculate all of them. Given that you are playing solo, time is one factor that you have on your side. All of this work can be done before you actually lay out the terrain and troops on the board, so even if your time is limited in how long you can keep the game set up, this time calculating does not count against it and can even be done the night before.

Distribution of Forces

Again, my experience with this aspect may be colored by OHW not allowing certain unit types to move into Woods, but having a random roll to determine if a unit will be in a given sector feels … random. That said, I don't have a better way of changing the charts so that it makes more sense for OHW.

Unit Deployment

This was something that seemed missing. Although AI helped you determine which sector of the battlefield your units were going to be assigned to, no mention on how that unit would be deployed in relation to the other units also assigned to that sector. As I sit here and ponder that question, any such rules would probably be very complex and not work well for all rules, so it is probably just as well that it was not addressed.

Unit Mission

I felt like this aspect was something I had not considered, which is the mission of the unit. Granted, the same mission is given to all units in the sector, but the idea a unit would intentionally only advance so far (if at all) until the mission was interesting. Note that missions are always to occupy the terrain in the sector. Generally these might be the objectives in a scenario, so I could see reverse-engineering the overall battle plan based on scenario objectives and victory points.

Unit Tactics

This was the one area I felt worked the least because there was so much interpretation as to what each tactic – Charge, Engage, Probe, React, and Relieve – really means. Take a game like OHW. The basic decision is first "Do I move or fire?" This is something many rules avoid as they allow a unit to move and fire in a single turn. It seems like the tactics should be more aligned with how the unit fights. Does it primarily inflict casualties by fire or hand-to-hand combat? If the former, are you in range yet? Do you have range 'bands' (short, medium, long, etc.) which affect effectiveness? If so, which band are you in?

Considering these types of factors would lead more to rule-based decision making system, rather than one driven by chance elements, but I think it is something to consider.

As stated previously, there is also an element of morale sprinkled into the tactics table, with less aggressive tactics implying a partial failure of morale being the cause for the less aggressive approach.

Final Analysis

Overall, how can you say that this is not good value for money at $5? (I hope Nic does not raise his prices after this review! 😄) There are far better, well thought out ideas that are actually useful to gaming solo than many of the books I have purchased that promise to tell me how to wargame solo. Just consider that, unless the main rules you play fit well into the model published in these solo rules, you should consider this a template for how to convert this process to the rules you use most often; it is a starting point.

Arcadia Quest's Solo Rules

 One of the games that I have had for a long time is CMON's Arcadia Quest (AQ). AQ is an adventure board game with cool, chibi-style miniatures (i.e. big heads, smaller body, little hands and feet) playable by 2-4 players. Although it has "monster" enemies that are not played by a specific player, it is only semi-cooperative. Players compete against one another to be the first one to complete quests. When all quests are complete, the scenario is over, players upgrade their characters, and you move on to another scenario (another night). There are six scenarios played total in every campaign.

There are more than six scenarios defined, so each campaign can consist of a different mix of scenarios. Beyond that, each player uses three characters throughout that campaign and there are numerous characters to choose from, so there is quite a bit of replayability. All that said, despite the dungeon crawling, campaign aspect of the game, this is more of a player-versus-player (PvP) than player-versus-environment (PvE) game, although components of both exist.

Given that it is more PvP than PvE, how can you play this game solo? If you can convert this to a solo game, why can't you convert it to a fully co-operative game then? Let's start by looking at the regular game mechanics, how CMON changed it for solo play, then look at a game.

AQ Game Mechanics

My goal here is not to review the entire rules, but to show how AQ works as a game, how the rules make decisions for the monsters, how combat works, and how a scenario is fought.

Combat

The basic combat mechanic in AQ is that every character (hero or monster) has an attack stat indicating the number of attack (black) dice they will roll, and whether that attack is ranged or melee. In addition, heroes have a defense stat indicating the number of defense (white) dice they will roll. Each successful defense roll (block) cancels a successful attack roll (hit). If there are more hits than blocks, the defender takes wounds equal to the difference. This leads to the third stat characters have, health, which is the number of hits they take before they are removed from play.

The primary difference in combat against heroes and combat against monsters is that the former have defense dice while the latter do not. This simplifies combat in that no one has to "play" the monster when a hero attacks one. There are no decisions to be made (at that time), it is simply does the hero inflict enough wounds to kill the monster or not?

The secondary difference between heroes and monsters in combat is that when the former's wounds equals or exceeds its health the combat is over. The hero's figure is removed from the board and placed on their stat card. (More on that later). Monsters, however, have a unique stat: the overkill stat. This stat represents the number of wounds that, if taken in a single hit, has killed the monster so quickly and decisively that it cannot strike back before it is removed. Anything less and the monster will get to make a "payback reaction".

Monster reactions are the "programs" for the monsters that dictate when a monster can act. Normally, monsters do not get a "turn". They stand in place in the designated location (according to the scenario) and do nothing until their program allows them to react to a player action. One of those reactions is when they are attacked and the hero does not manage to overkill them. At that point they can move (according to their movement stat) and attack the hero that attacked them. Some monsters have ranged attacks while others have melee attacks. It is possible, for example, for a hero to attack a monster and the reacting monster cannot move enough to attack the attacker back.

Another reaction monsters have in their program is when a hero attempts to move within or out of their "zone of control". This prevents players from simply moving their heroes around the monsters with impunity. The rules for this "guard reaction" is that they immediately attack the hero each time they move within or out of their zone of control. They do not move, however.

In both reaction cases, the player to the right of the player that owns the hero the monster is reacting to will act using the reacting monster and roll its dice. (Remember that AQ is primarily a PvP game, so there is plenty of incentive for the other player to act aggressively with the monster.)

Spawning

Monsters are placed in squares initially as indicated by the scenario. The image below shows the configuration of the board, portals, tokens, player starting area, and locations of monsters and objectives. In addition, the marker indicated with the red rectangles are "spawn tokens".

When a monster is killed it is moved off of the board onto the spawn track (the mini-board in the upper-left corner of the table with five slots). When all five slots are filled the monsters on that track will re-spawn into a random location on the board.

Each of the spawn tokens have two symbols printed on it. Two attack (black) dice are rolled for each figure on the spawn track, matching the symbols on the dice to the tokens. As there are three different symbols there are six unique combinations. As you can see in the image above, there are only four different combinations showing, so if a combination is rolled that is not on the board, that monster is permanently removed from the scenario, otherwise it is placed in the square with the corresponding token combination. (As there is a stacking limit to a square, if a combination is rolled and that square is already full, that monster is also permanently removed.)

Turn Sequence

As indicated above the basic turn sequence is as follows.

1. A single Hero activates for each player in turn. Alternately, a player can Rest his Guild (which is not discussed in this post).
1. If the Hero triggers a reaction, that Monster reacts to the Hero and acts according to its program and how the player to the right wishes.
2. Once all players have acted, if the Spawn Track is full, dice are rolled for each Monster on the track to see where it respawns, or if it is permanently removed.

Note that the Monsters do not get a "turn", thus this is not a traditional IGO-UGO game. This will become significant when we look at the solo rules.

AQ Solo Game Mechanics

Again, the idea is not to fully review the solo rules, but to highlight how the core mechanics change when playing solo.

Combat Mechanics

Combat mechanics do not change materially save for the Monster's movement stat. The stat remains the same – typically one square – but it is only used for payback reactions (reacting to being attacked by a Hero). As will be discussed in the Turn Sequence section, Monsters can move in their own separate turn and when they do, they will get to move three squares.

Because the intent is to use these rules by a single player, the mechanic of having the player to the right play the monsters when reacting will not work. The solo rules needed to tighten up their program on running the monsters. Because a reaction is always to a Hero and not to a player, nothing really needs to change. Either the monster can react to the moving/attacking player or it cannot. There are no real decisions to be made.

Spawn Mechanics

The mechanics do not materially change for solo play. The spawn tokens and spawn track still exist and are used the same way.

Turn Sequence

This is where the changes occur. The solo rules essentially have to change a PvP game to a PvE game. As before, no one "plays" the monster side, so the monsters need to be fully programmed.

The modified turn sequence is as follows.

1. The player activates all of his Heroes in any order he chooses, or Rests the Guild.
1. If the Hero triggers a reaction, that Monster reacts to the Hero and acts according to its program and how the player to the right wishes.
2. If the player completes all of the quests the game instantly ends.
2. If the Spawn Track is full, dice are rolled for each Monster on the track to see where it respawns, or if it is permanently removed.
3. The player will roll twice to determine which of the monsters on the board will get to move and attack.
1. Players lose and the scenario instantly ends if the Heroes have been killed a number of times equal to the difficulty of the game (somewhere between one and four times).
4. Once both Monsters have acted, the turn ends.

With the Monsters taking an active role, and there being only one Guild (team) to counter them with, the scenarios are much harder than when playing normally.

Conclusion

The goal of any A.I. or programmed opponent is to take the following four decisions away from the player and for the program to make them:

1. Which side gets to act next?
2. Which unit gets to act next?
3. Which actions will the acting unit take?
4. How will the unit execute those actions?

Given that this follows a traditional IGO-UGO turn sequence, this question is easily answered: the side that is current active will act next.

The spawn mechanics partially answer the second question: two dice are rolled to determine which spawn point to reference. Draw a Monster card. The closest Monster of the type indicated on the card to that spawn point will act next. If more than one meets that criteria, then it goes to the player choice. The player can use a number of rules to break the tie, which is recommended.

The third question is partially answered with rules: the Monster will move towards the closest Hero and then attack them if possible. Essentially the Monster takes an Attack action with an optional Move action if needed to get them to where they can attack.

The fourth question is largely unanswered. Although there are rules governing how a Monster should choose a target Hero, in the case of ties it is silent on how to break the tie. Where most of the ambiguity comes in are in the execution details. For example, if a Monster can attack from more than one direction there are no rules governing deciding which path. Also, if a Monster has a ranged weapon, can it (or should it) advance to the closest point at which it can fire, or should it move its full move?

In short, the solo rules are something to build upon, rather than relying upon it to cover all bases. (It does not even have the generic rule to "roll a die to choose", relying upon the player to choose.)

Testing

The more this lockdown continues, the more opportunity we all have to try more solo gaming and their mechanics. Although you can always fall back on the old "play both sides to the best of your ability" method, this leaves many games feeling like a test of the game mechanics, rather than an exciting narrative playing out. In fact, if you get too invested in one side, the odds are your bias with come out in lackluster or even bad plays on the opposing side. That is why having a solid program really helps solo gameplay.

These rules are "challenging". There is no adjustment to the enemy roster and you are expected to not only defeat the same number of enemy that would face two to four times the number of player Heroes, but these enemy can move towards you at great speed. In the two test games I played, the player's party never got more than one square beyond the starting area!

Overall, however, I enjoyed them and would play them again, with a few tweaks.

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.

Baron Babbage Beats Me

If you have been following along lately you know that I have been speculating about how to make programmed opponents work by starting with a look at the solo mechanics called Playing Against Mr Babbage which are included in the The Men Who Would Be Kings rules, making my own programmed opponent Baron Babbage for the Medieval variant of the rules One-Hour Wargames (OHW), making another programmed opponent Warlord Babbage for the Dark Ages variant of the rules One-Hour Wargames, and finally Shawn's test of Warlord Babbage. I finally took a breath and decided to try out my original Baron Babbage in order to see what refinements needed to be made. I suspected that there was a bad hole in my logic for units that were not the closest to a triggering condition, i.e. they had no orders whatsoever, and that there might be a lot of edge cases.

Let me start by saying that this will not be a typical battle report. My goal is not to report how the battle went, nor give a blow-by-blow, but to review the Red (programmed) turns specifically, state the decision that I took, and discuss what refinements need to be made.

Scenario #8: Melee (One-Hour Wargames)

Red (Defender): Programmed

Just as a reminder, here is what the scenario's terrain looks like.

The scenario has two Red units on the hill at the start of the game. All other forces on both sides come in at various turns. There are six units in each army. The army composition is random for both sides. The scenario lasts 15 turns with Red taking the first turn.

Red Turn 1

I now believe this is a bad deployment as it anticipates Blue moving around the left flank. Better that it deploy in D4 and D5 facing South (the Blue baseline) and move on Red Turn 2, based on Blue's actual move.

Also, I realize that I did not think the deployment orders through. My order of preference in units to deploy here are Men-at-Arms then Knights. It is possible to have zero, one, or two Men-at-Arms units. What if you only had one? Should it deploy on the left or the right? (It should deploy on the right as the left is the position of maneuver and a Knight is more maneuverable.)

Red Turn 2

I brought on three Knight units as my move, using one to try and flank the hill from the East. The other two units will assault the hill frontally.
So, this is where the first rule refinement comes from.
Rule #1 says once you are on the hill, you stay on the hill. So that rule does not apply.
Rule #2 states that if there is an empty position on the hill, the closest unit to that position moves to occupy that position. It needs a qualifier that states that if you are already on the hill you may ignore the rule under some circumstances. Without the qualifier, a programmed unit would simply move back and forth between two empty positions on the hill. We do not want that.
That said, if a unit on a hill could make a move to block a Blue unit from gaining the hill, without risking its current position being take by a Blue unit, shouldn't it move to block? We will consider that rule later. For now we are just going to add the qualifier that if a unit is already on the hill it is not forced to obey Rule #2, nor will it count as the "closest unit".

Red Turn 3

During Blue's turn the Knight unit flanking the hill could not yet make a charge from the road. (Charging only allows a 45º pivot at the beginning of the turn and it was adjudged that the unit would clip the woods, so it had to move farther down the road to charge.) Now that Red reinforcements are coming on that really looks like a bad move. Nonetheless, let's review Red's decisions.

The two Red Knights on the hill have no decision to make. They are defending the hill, so they solemnly wait the charge from the Blue Knights.

The first unit entering from the road is a Red Knight. It can ignore Rule #1 as it is not on the hill. Rule #2 states that, as the closest unit, it must move towards the (closest) empty position on the hill. As it stands, that is also the position that is threatened by the West-most Blue Knight, so that is a good move. Red Knight #3 moves to occupy D5.

The second unit entering from the road is a Red Archer unit. Rule #1 does not apply. Rule #2 has been applied to Red Knight #3 for square D5, but square D6 is also empty. Normally you would apply Rule #2 to another unit, but Archers are an exception. Rule #3 does not apply as Blue has not occupied the hill. This essentially leaves the Red Archer unit only with Rule #4, which says that it may not move move than 6" from the Red baseline. The rationale for this deployment was listed as: "Archers on the left flank will have more opportunity to engage in shooting as they will be away from the objective. Archers on the baseline have the potential to shoot enemy Knights attacking the left flank of the hill, or those sweeping around. If the enemy engage them, all the better, as that means they are not engaging the units on the objective." With that, it made sense that the order should have been to move 6" off of the baseline to threaten the Blue Knight preparing to charge the East end of the hill.

I need a new rule that covers the condition when a Red Archer unit is not on the hill and does not have a Blue target on the hill.

Red Turn 4

As you can see from the image above, Blue has attacked on the East end of the hill and frontally. One of the Blue Knight units has gained the heights. Before I go on with discussing Red's moves, I ran into an interesting issue with the OHW rules.

Notice the Red Archer unit on the bottom left. It is on the flank of the Blue Knight unit which is engaged in hand-to-hand combat  with the Red Knight unit on the hill. Can the Red Archer unit fire into the Blue Knight unit? I know plenty of rules that would say 'no', or have a rule like one-half of the casualties are allocated to each side, but OHW is absolutely silent on the issue. Further, OHW is incredibly permissive, which lends me to believe a unit can shoot at an enemy unit in hand-to-hand combat. The one applicable rule I thought would apply was that a unit cannot be attacked on more than one face (in hand-to-hand combat) and that aligned nicely with, say, the rule in Dux Bellorum (which allows a missile unit to fire at a unit in close combat as long as the line of fire is completely clear of the enemy unit's base), so I felt I was on solid ground. What do you think?

By the way, the red and yellow die are both there because I misinterpreted the flank attack rule. It applies only to hand-to-hand combat and not to shooting. I sort of rationalized to myself that it would get double hits for flank, but one-half hits for "cover" (being in melee), so I only registered 5 hits. In this case, it worked out...

The Red Archer unit ignores Rules #1 and #2. Rule #3 would have applied if it were not for the Red Knight to the North of the hill being closer and the shot being blocked. So again, no applicable order applies to the Red Archer unit.

This is probably a separate rule from the one indicated above, which would govern firing. Given that you can only move or fire, which new rule should have precedence?

The Red Knight unit to the North of the hill matches Rule #2 and #3. It occurs to me that I may need to switch the order of these – having the unit attack the Blue unit on the hill over first moving onto the hill itself – but I am not sure. I will leave that decision until next turn. As it stands, the move to obey either rule is the same. I also need to add a clause about not exposing your flank to the enemy at the end of your move. (Note that my Red Knight to the North maintained its facing. That was not in the program.

One other note: for some reason I did not bring on Blue's reinforcements on turn 4, but rather turn 5. I did not even realize this until writing this report, in fact. That was a big mistake.

Red Turn 5

This was an interesting turn, in terms of programming. I realized that the Red Knight unit had to obey Rule #2, so rather than attacking uphill against the Blue Knight it moved to the vacant hill position and faced to charge the following turn.

That move, in turn, triggers the option for Rule #3 to apply to the Red Archer unit. Now that the Blue Knight unit is exposed, the Red Archer unit shifted right in order to shoot in future turns.

The other two Red units, being engaged in hand-to-hand combat, can do nothing but continue to fight.

Red Turn 6

The last of the reinforcements enter the board. The Red Levy units enter from the West edge, North of the hill.

As the Knights on the hill are all in hand-to-hand combat, there are no decisions. That leaves the Red Archers and the two Red Levy to consider.

I began to feel that the angle was too sharp for the Red Archers to fire into the Blue Knights that it had shifted right to attack last turn. So, with rules 1 through 3 not in play, they fired at the Blue Knights at the East end of the hill. This was the first instance of where the program went in one direction one turn, then reversed back the next. Basically, I lost one turn of fire due to that 'indecision'. I can live with that result, but it is something to watch for in future games.

The first Red Levy unit acts on Rule #3, which is to attack the Blue Knight unit on the hill. It thus moves towards a position from which it can charges its flank. The second Red Levy unit, however, has no applicable orders.

What happens to a unit when there is no unoccupied hill position and other (closer) units are already engaging enemy units on the hill? I need an order to reinforce the weak link in the line.

The original two Red Knight units on the hill are pretty beat up, so the second Red Levy unit moves left in order to fill any gap that may appear on the East end of the hill.

Red Turn 7

Blue was able to shoot down the weakened Red Knight unit on the East end of the hill, so the second Red Levy unit continues to shift left, as Rule #2 now applies to it.

The first Red Levy unit charges into contact of the flank of the Blue Knight unit on the hill.

The unengaged Red Knight cannot move from the hill and because I indicated earlier that a unit on the hill does not need to move to another unoccupied position on the hill, it simply stays put.

Finally, the Red Archer has no target and Rule #4 does not allow it to move farther off of the baseline. I allow it to do nothing, for now. But if it continues to stay out of the action, I may have to rethink its orders, especially as there is a possibility of having two such units.

Red Turn 8

The third Red Knight unit (that reinforced from the road) is gone, but the Red Levy was able to eliminate the Blue Knight unit they were both fighting before it was able to turn to flank. The Red Levy unit will gain the hill position.

The second Red Levy unit continues to shift left to occupy the East end of the hill. Once it gets there, however, I am not sure what it will do...

The Red Archer unit shoots at the advancing Blue Archer unit.

It may not have been a valid shot, considering that the Red Levy unit partially masks the line of sight. However, I generally go from unit center point-to-center point and that is not masked, so I allowed it. Would you have allowed the shot?

Red Turn 9

The first Red Levy unit has another Blue Knight unit to its flank so that means that Rule #3 now comes into play. It will simply face 90º to the right as it cannot charge.

The remaining Red Knight unit is nearly exhausted (as indicated by the arrow showing that it is four hits away from being destroyed).

The Red Archer unit continues to fire at the Blue Archer unit and the Red Levy unit finally gains the position on the East end of the hill. Its flank is exposed to the Blue Archer unit, but as it cannot turn 90º and charge it is relatively safe.

Red Turn 10

No unusual decisions. Red Archer fires. Red Levy holds firm.

Red Turn 11

The Blue Archer unit gets cut down by the Red Archer fire, relieving the last of the threats on the East flank. The Red Levy unit no longer needs to concern itself. Next turn we will look at how its orders should change, along with the Red Archer unit.

Note that the single, remaining Red Knight unit is still hanging on by a thread, with Blue having rolled terribly all of these turns.

Red Turn 12

Amazingly, Red Knight continues to hold on. One more hit and it collapses. This causes me to think about 'threats'. Red Levy cannot contribute to the melee between Red Knight and Blue Men-at-Arms because: a) it cannot come off of the hill (Rule #1); and b) it cannot move through the woods. If Red Levy were to stay facing South and the next turn Red Knight were to collapse, Blue Men-at-Arms would gain the hill (take the defeated Red Knight's position) and Red Levy would not be poised to charge as it could not turn 90º and charge.

I posit that there needs to be an order to allow a unit to change face on the hill which threatened from one side, but not threatened from the other. But I am not sure how to write the rule.

Red Levy faces right in anticipation that Red Knight will collapse next turn.

Red Archer, meeting the conditions of Rule #3, slides to the right to shoot into the flank of Blue Knight on the hill.

Red Turn 13

As expected, Red Knight is eliminated and Blue Men-at-Arms advances to take its position. This triggers Rule #3 for Red Levy, who charges into the flank of the Blue Men-at-Arms. Clearly they were reluctant to do so as they rolled a '2'!

Red Archer finds the Blue Knights closer and shoots into their flank due to Rule #3.

Red Turn 14

The Red Levy finally get their courage up and roll a hefty '6' on the die (which only counts as three hits, despite what the die shows), enough to vanquish the Blue Men-at-Arms (who had been badly mauled by the Red Knights Who Would Not Die).

The Red Archers continue to plink away at the Blue Knights. Don't ask me why the Blue Knights are facing down the hill; they should be facing the Red Levy. Don't ask me why the die says two hits, when the minimum is three. This picture clearly was messed up.

Red Turn 15

The end. The Red Levy and Red Archers pound the Blue Knights, inflicting a total of ten hits in a single round. (Ouch!) Baron Babbage clears the hill, leaving Red the victor.

Decision Review

So, here are the following additions that need to be made to the program:

1. When a unit is already on the hill, it is not required to obey Rule #2. This stops a unit from shifting back and forth between unoccupied positions.
2. When a unit is already on the hill, it may obey Rule #2 if:
1. The direction it is turning towards either allows it to attack an enemy unit on the hill, or allows it to block an enemy unit from getting on the hill.
2. The direction it is turning away from contains no possible threat to gaining a position on the hill.
3. When an Archer unit does not have a Blue target on the hill to shoot at (or move towards), it has no order.
4. When a non-Archer unit does not have an open hill position to move to (Rule #2) and no Blue unit on a hill position (or it cannot reach it), it has no order.

All in all I am very satisfied with the orders as is, and with these additions I think I am happy with it representing a cautious defender.

Shawn Plays Against Warlord Babbage

One of the reasons I wrote Playing Against Warlord Babbage pretty quickly after Playing Against Baron Babbage, without a test between, is because local gaming buddy Shawn wanted to try out the idea, but with his Dark Ages forces. He just finished up his game and sent me his notes, which have been really helpful.

Feedback

Let me start by saying that I do see some holes in the program I wrote already. I view this as a process that will be refined over time. That is why I want to work on a template for how to write these programs up and include some boilerplate rules. But, let me start with Shawn's comments.

Issue: Adaptation. The programmed opponent did not account for army composition adaptation or personal perspective. I initially wanted to use an Early Saxon army for Warlord Babbage with the Warband substitution for Infantry and no Cavalry. [This is an example of the type of adaptation Neil Thomas refers to in his rules.] The programmed opponent was perfectly suited to the rules as written, however, so any issue here was in my not discussing this issue before asking for the Dark Ages opponent. As we discussed, it was simple to just switch Red and Blue. Might be something to account for in a fully developed programmed opponent (probably more of a tie-in to historical flavor)?

Although I do account for varying composition, as allowed by the standard rules, the programmed opponent still depended upon the predominant unit type being Infantry. Simply using a force composed of Warbands and Skirmishers would probably have resulted in a disaster for that program. But who knows until you try it out? My point is that the more adaptable your program is to such a critical component – force composition – either the program will become very complex and conditional – i.e. a bunch of IF-THEN-ELSE statements – or very generic.

Issue: Rule #1. This rule states “Once a unit is on the hill, it may not move off.” From my understanding of this rule, I had several instances where a Red unit on the hill couldn’t move to flank a Blue unit attacking up the hill, so they remained in place.

So, after discussing this issue with Shawn there were several factors that led to this belief. I had put a statement in my Rationale section that did not appear in my rules: "The unit in D4 must be prepared to shift to the left flank of the hill (D3) if Blue attempts to flank the hill." At the end of Blue's turn 1, the situation was the following:

You can see that Red's units did not move on turn 1 (no reason to) and that Blue's move took one Warband down the road, flanking the hill's East end, while the other Warband threatened the hill frontally. This is exactly the move the Cautious Red Warlord should expect. The counter is the following.

The rightmost Red unit turns to face East and moves to the East end of the hill to block the Warband from gaining the height. This is a situation "in between" Rule #2 and Rule #3.

Rule #2 states: "If there is an empty position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to occupy that position."

Rule #3 states: "If there is a Blue Army unit occupying a position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to melee that unit. The closest Skirmisher unit must move to a position where they shoot at the Blue Army unit."

The situation is not really covered by either rule. Rule #2 needs to be refined to say that it does not apply if already on the hill. (If you didn't, then a unit on the hill would be moving back and forth each turn as it would move to an empty location on one turn and then move back on the following turn.) Rule #3 does not apply because Blue is not on the hill; it is poised to gain the hill in its next move. So there needs to be a new rule:

• If there is a Blue Army unit that can occupy a position on the hill in its next move the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to block that unit's move. The closest Skirmisher unit must move to a position where they shoot at the Blue Army unit.

What this rule does is create the moves indicated above. The rightmost Red unit moves East, blocking the flanking Blue unit's advance up the hill. That in turn exposes a position where the Blue unit attacking frontally could gain the hill. So the leftmost Red unit must also slide to the East (but still facing the unit down the hill) to block that move.

This brought up an interesting discussion between Shawn and I as it pointed out another reason why generic programmed opponents have a difficult time working. In order for this program to work the rules had to support such a maneuver. The first Red unit has to be able to face 90º and then move 6" along the hill in order to block the Blue flanking unit. The second Red unit has to "sidestep" – be able to move horizontally without changing face, or be able to pivot 90º, move, and then pivot 90º again – in order to execute the program. One-Hours Wargames is that flexible, but many other rules are not.

Even though this program is specifically for OHW it did get me thinking: why those particular starting positions? Why is the easternmost unit not already deployed to D3? Food for thought.

Issue: Rule #3. This rule states “If there is a Blue Army unit occupying a position on the hill the Red Army unit that can reach the position the quickest – except Skirmishers – must move to melee that unit. The closest Skirmisher unit must move to a position where they shoot at the Blue Army unit.” This caused the Red Cavalry unit [entering via the road] to ignore a Blue Skirmisher unit right in front of it and expose its flank in order to move to the hill. Ultimately this Red Cavalry unit was eliminated by skirmisher fire (but not until after the Red Cavalry unit had charged the rear of a Blue Warband unit and destroyed it). I’m not sure this is actually an issue as the hill is the objective. I just wanted to point out that this type of situation occurs.

And it is a good point. This is where I am excited to have someone like Shawn write a different version of the Red Warlord. It sounds like his program might not take that risk of a valuable unit (Cavalry), exchanging it for an enemy Warband. His program might take into account the number of turns remaining and compare it against the average time for the Cavalry to deal with the enemy Skirmisher unit, say "If the turn is less than 8, you can ignore this rule in favor of another rule that could determine your action." Another equally valid method would be to write a rule with higher precedence. This would allow you to put your more specific cases at the top and your more general orders farther down.

Issue: Rule #3. See above for this rule's text, however it is referring to the second clause, which is regarding what a Skirmisher unit should do. No issues here, I just missed this operating rule when I played the game. I ended up largely forgetting about the Red Skirmisher unit until the Cavalry cleared the line of sight. Probably a wash as moving to have line of sight would have prevented shooting that turn.

The other big "hole" in the program is when none of the rules apply to your units. What do you do then? Rule #4 ensures that the Skirmisher unit stays within 6" of the Red baseline, but doesn't tell you any other priorities. Same if two Cavalry units come on the road (the closest is to make for the closest gap on the hill, but what does the farthest Cavalry unit do), and so on. That has to be addressed.

Issue: Historical Flavor. As an option I would recommend adjusting the programmed opponents to reflect increased historical flavor, i.e. using “Mount Badon” instead of “hill,” adjust for certain army types, etc. Not necessary, just my personal preference.

Interesting, as I had not considered that. I view the OHW variant as responsible for providing the proper historical flavor. But if there were a way to add historical flavor to the programmed opponent, I would surely do that. As for the scenario, I view OHW's scenarios as generic, although the author clearly gives a nod to historical battles some have been modeled after. If I were writing a programmed opponent for a specific historical battle I agree it would surely make sense to do so.

Issue: Overall Enjoyment. I very much enjoyed using the programmed opponent and I think it made me focus more on the objectives for both sides than if I had just played without the program. I think the game came in right around one hour. The only downside for me was trying to take notes throughout the battle (I was hand-writing the notes, so it was somewhat painful). The note-taking for feedback also reduced my mental imagery of warbands clashing against shield walls and charging cavalry, etc., but this has nothing to do with the program itself.

Given that the result was a draw, it sounds like it can provide a decent challenge. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Battle Report – Shawn Versus Red Warlord Babbage

Again, this is scenario #8 (Melee) from One-Hour Wargames, playing the Dark Ages variant. The Red forces are the programmed opponent. Shawn has decided to play the Early Saxons, so Infantry and Cavalry units are exchanged for Warband units.

Arthurian British infantry occupy Mount Badon.

Early Saxon warbands move to attack Mount Badon.

The Saxong assault on Mount Badon begins a British reinforcement arrive.

A Saxon warband flanks the British position on Mount Badon and blocks the cavalry movement.
Saxon reinforcements arrive from the road to the South.

A unit of British infantry is eliminated on Mount Badon, but King Arthur and reinforcements are on the way.
The British cavalry on the east flank rout a Saxon warband.
Saxon reinforcements move around the woods to support the assault on Mount Badon.
Saxon skirmishers block the road and take up position in the woods.

The British cavalry on the east flank move to counterattack the Saxons.
Fighting breaks out all along Mount Badon.
Rival skirmishers along the road hurl javelins and bow fire at one another.

The British cavalry on the east flank are destroyed by the combined effects of the melee and follow-on skirmish fire,
but not before destroying another Saxon warband.
King Arthur and his Knights move to flank the Saxon hold on Mount Badon.

Another Saxon warband is destroyed on Mount Badon.
This is followed soon after by a devastating flank attack against the remaining British infantry unit.
King Arthur sweeps across Mount Badon, crashing into and destroying another warband.
The British skirmishers along the road disperse their counterparts with effective bow fire.

The remaining Saxon skirmisher unit pivots to meet Arthur's charge;
both sides survive a round of melee as the battle ends in a draw.

Summary

I knew the system would need some refinement and expansion, but I am pleasantly surprised that it stood up as well as it did on the first test by someone else. I look forward to anyone else giving it a try and providing feedback.