As primarily a solo gamer one of the chief problems I've found is to reproduce higher command accurately. Not only does the player have a godlike control over the course of events, it's also very easy to subconsciously side with one or other of the belligerents in a natural desire to see a clear-cut result. This is particular true of campaigns, where either one side becomes a mere punch bag for the others glory, or the whole campaign bogs down into a stalemate. Thus I wanted to find a system of command whereby the leaders of the various forces make their own decisions dictated by their personalities, skill, experience, and the circumstances they are in, with only minimum input by the player himself. The solo wargamer thus becomes an umpire rather than a player, a witness to a game played by shadows. Commercial sets of rules, despite a lot of work on the subject of "command cock-ups" failed to take the ultimate step of making the tabletop generals actually autonomous of the player, so I decided to formulate my own. For the detail I was looking for it wasn't enough simply to rate an officer as "good", "average" or "poor". In reality human beings have strengths and weaknesses in a wide range of areas, plus all the idiosyncrasies that mark them as individuals. In the Napoleonic Wars, Berthier was an excellent staff officer yet failed miserably as a field commander in 1809; Kutusov, despite being highly skilled, was also lazy; Davout was extremely difficult to get on with; The Duke of York liable to panic if things went wrong; Ney brave but tactically inept (judging by his performance in 1815). How could a simple system reflect all these points and take into account characters such as the Austrian Mack, who impressed everyone with his complicated theories for twelve years until his eventual surrender at Ulm shattered the illusion? The answer came from role-playing games, where characters have scores relating to their fighting ability, strength, dexterity and so on. In wargames terms it seemed an easy process to use such ratings to reflect various aspects of the officers general ship and personality. This combined with ideas initially gained from an article by Roger Underwood in Wargames Illustrated 10 entitled "Decision Games" helped me formulate the following system. In Roger's feature campaigns were broken down into crucial "decision points" where each player was given a choice of two or three options to choose from, the result leading on to the next point in the game in a style similar to the "Fighting Fantasy" books, but without the weight of one answer being correct and the others wrong. However I really wanted a system that goes a stage further and run an entire campaign without any decisions (apart from tactical manoeuvres) made by the player himself. What's the Point? What's the point? I hear you say. Why deprive the players of the thrill and ego boost of trying to be Napoleon, Alexander, Guderian or whoever - it takes away the whole fun of Wargaming surely? Well no I don't think it does. For the solo player the thrill is in developing the characters of the opponents and managing their affairs, watching events unfold like the pages of a book. And because it's a solo system the commanders can be killed off, replaced, or still cover themselves with glory if their ratings allow it and the player provides the situation or he can play one side himself against the rules, using the dice to determine the actions of his opponent. Then again, for multi-player campaigns the system can be used to force the players to think and behave like their historical counterparts, as well as adding a realistic loss of control over subordinates. Historically major wars often featured campaigns between armies of 50,000 plus, which can be extremely difficult to reproduce on the tabletop. However, using this system players can take command of single divisions or brigades in mini-campaigns, while the rest of the armies are manoeuvring in other sectors controlled by the Umpire's dice. Thus a realistic element of "outside interference" can be introduced, whether from senior generals or politicians. I've used this system successfully with solo campaigns in the wars of the French Revolution, but there's no reason why it can't be used with other periods, or with several players a side, and with minor adjustments should be adaptable to most rules sets. The SCODIT System For each officer of Brigade level or higher roll 2D6 to reach a rating level for each of the following characteristics: Strategy (S), Command (C), Offence (O), Defence (D), Initiative (I), and Tenacity (T). Individual unit commanders can be summed up with a single roll to cover all the areas, if you run very large games. To these totals add or subtract the following modifiers: Inexperienced = -1 to S,C,O and D. Unwilling Ally = -2 to T. - Experienced (i.e., senior) Commander - ignore rolls of 2 and 3, as such individuals would be presumably weeded out before reaching high command (in theory at any rate!). Graduated from Military College = +1 to S. Posting by skill (e.g., France) = +1 to S,C,O and D Posting by influence or purchase only (e.g., Austria, Russia) = -l to S,C,O and D. Although Britain should also fall into this category a lot of the weaker officers were weeded out weeded out after the reforms before being posted. Russia in fact should have a total of -2, as most of her officers were also completely inexperienced, in 1799. Explanation of Characteristics STRATEGY (S): Reflects the ability to formulate successful plans of campaign, spot traps, read maps, inspire subordinates to follow their plans, understand their own role in operations etc. COMMAND (C): Determines ability in logistics, supply, administration, giving orders and other staff duties, and generally keeping his men fed, armed and clothed. OFFENCE (O): Indicates ability to organise aggressive attacks and pursuits, inspire subordinates to deliver attacks, and understanding of such instructions himself. DEFENCE (D): Ability to organise defensive lines, ambushes, redoubts, use of topographical features etc. Also reflects skill in retreat, rallying, understanding of defensive plans and so on. INITIATIVE (I): Judges ability to act independently, to respond to situations and if necessary break with orders. For higher command reflects willingness to deviate from plans, improvise etc. TENACITY (T): Determines level of commitment to the campaign, and degree of energy in responding to orders. Readiness to engage the enemy, willingness to take risks, push his men etc. Whenever the officer is called upon to make a decision reduce the choices available to a simple yes/no alternative. Roll 2D6 against the most applicable characteristic - if the result is less than the characters rating the answer is yes. If it's the same rating he dithers for one move (for a table game) or one hour (during campaign time) then rolls again. If it's higher than his rating the answer is no. The greater the margin the more severe the response. If there are several alternatives available then roll for the most likely course of action first, based on the characters rating levels, and if that fails the next choice and so on until there is only one option left. Generals with an Initiative rating of 5 or less would be likely to throw their arms up in despair and seek the advice of their fellow officers, so this option should be included. To the rolls should be added modifiers as applicable. Maybe the army is tired, or night setting in. If the enemy is in greater strength this should be reflected by heavy minus factors to Offence rolls. In the same way characters other ratings may have an effect on their decisions, particularly Tenacity and Initiative. Simulate this by giving modifiers as follows: Skill Rating: 2,3 4,5 6,7,8 9,10 11,12 Modifier: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 For example someone like St. Just in 1794 would have a dangerous combination of low Offensive skill but extremely high Tenacity, which would add a +2 to Offensive rolls, leading to some rash attacks. However, someone like Bonaparte would have a high Offensive skill and be able to spot traps and dangers, as well as using his equally high Strategy skill as a modifier. How exactly the player uses modifiers is a matter of circumstance - I won't go on for pages and pages compiling charts detailing every eventuality, but here are a few examples. Troops tired: -1 to Offence, forced marches etc, +1 to Defence Outnumbered by Enemy: -1 as above (2-1 odds -2, 3-1 odds -3 etc) Enemy Retreating: +1 to Offensive actions etc. General has an "off" day: -1 to all rolls Flanks under threat: +2 to retreat options As an example in a recent campaign set in 1798 the French commander Durand suddenly came up against an enemy force of equal strength in a strong position threatening the line of retreat to his supply base five miles away. He had four choices of action : a) An all-out frontal attack to drive the enemy off. b) Try to negate the enemy position by a pinning attack to the front and a flank movement to dislodge him. c) Sit and attempt to entice the enemy to abandon his position with feints, then launch a counter attack, or d) pull out and try to work around the enemy position by another route. Durand's ratings were S7 C11 O6 D6 I8 T10. I figured that the T10 indicated that Durand was more likely to attack than stay put or retreat, and the C11 suggested that he cared enough for his troops to avoid a possibly bloody direct assault, so I rolled for choice b) first against his Offence rating, with a +1 added for the T10, and -1 because the enemy were in a strong position. This roll failed, so I then rolled on a), also against Offence. The modified result was 6, so Durand dithered for an hour before trying again, and this time rolled a 9 which again failed. Considering the fact that the enemy had showed no sign of obliging Durand by attacking him, I then rolled for choice d) against Durand's Strategy rating, and this time succeeded. So with just four die rolls a critical decision was reached, even though I was denied the opportunity of satisfying my own desire for a punch-up. Realism at last? It all sounds like a lot of die rolling for the sake of a single decision, but in truth there are rarely more than three or four realistic options, and the choice of a correct action can mean the winning or losing of a campaign - in the example above the French were subsequently caught on the march and severely defeated. On the battlefield the ratings will dictate the kind of action to be fought - will the general attack or make a defensive stand? If he attacks will it be on the left, the right, the centre or some other combination? When will he decide enough is enough and order the retreat? How capable is he of responding to enemy assaults? These crucial decisions can all be rolled for, with judicious use of modifiers for the situation in hand. The Offensive and Defensive skills will dictate the degree to which the officer utilises dead ground, reserves, defence in depth, combined arms attacks and so on, often without the need to resort to the dice. The player should try to "get into the skin" of the tabletop commanders - an officer with an Offence rating of 2 will be unlikely to formulate aggressive battle-plans, and if by some chance he did they would be so uncoordinated the enemy should have little difficulty in brushing them off. If in trying to get his attacks going he then rolled a 12 it's highly likely he'd run off and abandon his troops - try and get your average wargamer to do that! Writing Orders The sending officer uses his (or his Chief of Staff's) Command rating as a modifier on the order. The officer who receives the order then rolls on his Offence, Defence, Strategy or whichever applicable skill to see if he understands it, including his superiors Command modifier and any other modifiers (being of a different nationality, or reading the order while under fire for instance). If he makes his level well and good, he immediately follows the new order. If not: Final score same as his level: Officer dithers for a move then rolls again. Difference of 1: Follow order but make a mistake - move to the wrong location, attack wrong position etc. Difference of 2: Request clarification of order - do nothing until an ADC has returned from HQ with a clearer order. Difference of 3 or more: Ignore the order and do just as the officer pleases. Other Optional Skills These more detailed ratings serve to flesh out the chief protagonists if the player(s) wish to really get into their roles. For example:- PERSONALITY (P): Determines how well the character gets on with other officers. A rating of say, 11, would be bosom pals with another 11, but mistrust a 5 and share mutual hatred with a 2. This can be real fun when commanders are under orders to support colleagues they'd be happier to see blown to bits - modifiers to die rolls should reflect this. DIPLOMACY (DP): Shows how the officer fares at the conference table and in dealing with town officials, governments and so on, all subject to Personality modifiers. FITNESS (F): Determines how active the character is. Wounds would reduce the rating (l or 2D6 per wound) until below 2 forces the officer to quit the army. A starting score of less than 5 would suggest an officer excessively fat, old, ridden with gout, or all three! BRAVERY (B): Is the officer likely to lead his men from the front like Lannes, oblivious to shot and shell? Or is he more likely to be skulking in the background ducking at every stray? A 12 means the former, 2 the latter. Finally Morale Troops tend to be fonder of officers who take care of their logistical needs as well as leading them to glory, so I add together the officers Command, Initiative and Tenacity ratings and divide by 3, adding modifiers for Offence, Defence and Strategy. The final total is then broken down into morale modifiers as explained above. Example: An officer with ratings of S5 C2 O9 D4 I3 and T10 would add together 2+3+10=15 divided by 3=5. This would give a morale rating of -1 but the Offence score of 9 impresses the troops enough to raise his morale by one to 6, giving him a final morale rating of 0, or average. In conclusion here are a few examples of using SCODIT in campaigns. Although the system doesn't cover every eventuality there's enough flexibility for players to handle most situations. I've used the system for 18th Century Naval campaigns (replace Offence and Defence with Seamanship and Naval Tactics skills) and have also used it with politicians to decide on war policies and campaign goals. In this I use skills of Patriotism, Home Policy, Foreign Policy, Sincerity, Authority and Ambition for the head of state, and single die rolls to find the allegiances of a dozen other politicians, the higher scored forming the cabinet and the lower the opposition. For policy decisions each rolls to see if they are in favour or against, with modifiers for the head of state's Authority, success of his policies to date etc. If the modifiers against his policies become so much that the cabinet votes against him then he either resigns or faces assassination or the guillotine. The higher the ratings the more aggressive and imperialist the leader. As an example here's the ratings of the fictitious Prince of Heinburg - Pa4 HP7 FP6 Si10 Au8 Am11. The Pa4 suggests rather a weak ruler swayed by his neighbours, but extremely sincere and ambitious - just the type who would throw in his lot with Napoleon looking for some easy territorial gains without actually having to go to war, or even sell out his tiny state for personal glory. Decision Roll on: To "march to the sound of the guns" Initiative, modifiers of S and T. To stand against superior attack Tenacity, mods of D and other factors. Besieged called upon to surrender In unfamiliar country to avoid taking a wrong turning Strategy To initiate tactical assaults Offence, mods of T and other factors. To order a forced march Tenacity To respond to enemy offensive Strategy, mods of I and T. To raise a local volunteer militia Command, mods of DP and morale factor. To begin an offensive Tenacity, mods of S and I To halt to rest troops Strategy, mods of C and T (reversed so that +2 becomes -2 and so on), plus level of troops fatigue To make ceasefire overtures Tenacity (a failed role meaning a success in this case), mods of applicable factors. So that's it. As can be seen there's no end to the uses of the system. Decisions can be made about anything from whether to declare war to should I wear the white tunic with the brass buttons or the full dress coat with the swirly gold bits on the collar. It's up to the player to use the system as much as he feels necessary for the campaign to remain independent of his Wargamer's foreknowledge. Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #21 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1997 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com