Computer assisted wargaming has the potential to develop into something of considerable benefit to the miniatures wargaming fraternity. It can reduce the problems of rule complexity, open up wargaming to beginners and enhance several aspects of the game. However, to fulfill more of its potential it would benefit from greater exposure and discussion.
There are several types of assistance that computers can offer to wargamers. I would classify these as: Battle Assistance (Tactical Level) Systems, Campaign & Strategic Systems, Tournament Control Systems.
In this article I will put more emphasis on battle assistance. This is because such systems exist now, can be readily applied and so would be of interest to most garners. The potential of the other approaches is, I suspect, more likely to be realised in the future and so they tend to be of theoretical interest.
MINIATURES WARGAMING THE "MANUAL" APPROACH
What most gamers seem to me to want is an historically accurate game that is fast to play, requires a minimum of rule knowledge and book keeping, and causes an absolute minimum of dispute between players. We want to engage in a sociable, intellectual hobby with a sound historical basis. How could we move closer to this Nirvana? I don't say we can reach it completely with computer assistance, but we may be able to approach a little closer to what we want.
The first difficulty I perceive with our current manual approach is conflict resolution. Wargaming is about the only competitive game I know of where the players attempt to interpret the rules themselves, rather than employing a referee. Other games such as football gave up this notion as impractical ages ago. They have clear rules but they also employ a referee to interpret them and enforce the decision. Can you imagine two football teams debating the rules as they played the game? There would be chaos! It is probably a tribute to the good sense of war gamers that we have been able to operate in this way with success, but not necessarily as much satisfaction as we might reasonably expect.
Has this form of rule interpretation always been the practice in wargaming? Certainly not. The group I regard as the originator of modern war games as we know them, the Prussians with their Kreigspiel approach to officer training, were never persuaded that you could decide the rules between two players alone. The referee was a key figure who decided most uncertainties and no argument was entered into. It is not always practical however to have a third person present. It can also be a thankless role and not a particularly interesting one either.
The second major issue is the amount of book keeping necessary if we are to include a fair number of historical factors, such as fatigue, in a realistic way. This is time consuming, boring and error prone. It is also a source of contention as we have a different recollection of what happened to a particular unit and can distrust the player's logging to the point where we have to log not only our own casualties and fatigue but also that of our opponents just to be sure. Not everyone likes to see themselves as Accountants at War!
Another major issue is the degree of historical realism versus speed and ease of play. With paper based rules there seems to be a trade off between a higher level of historical accuracy and a lower level of playing ease. The major rule sets are, in the view of a number of players I have spoken to, too large and complex for ready comprehension. They defy many beginners and less frequent players, who have to suffer a number of defeats before they can begin to get a good command of the rules. The more historical factors you need to take into account, the more bulk and complexity seems to be added to the rules. This is another cause of conflict between players. We quite naturally have different interpretations and are drawn into legalistic debate - sometimes deliberately but mostly by mischance.
Simpler, faster rules are available but these tend to gloss over a number of historical factors to achieve speed of play and ease of comprehension. Paper seems to prevent us getting the best of both worlds.
Another issue that arises is that of "knowing too much". Historical generals had to fight intuitively. They could not determine likely outcomes of shooting and melee to the extent that we gamers are told by our rule books. For example, our historical generals could not know EXACTLY how far the weapons would reach or what were the relative factors for various troops in melee. They had to estimate based on their experience and their knowledge of the troops and officers under their command. They did not have the "scientific" knowledge we get from reading war game rules.
Do we need to continue like this? Aren't we all happy enough with war games as they are? Well, "yes and no" is the answer I hear from a lot of players. It is a great game, but it could stand some improvement. Now I don't want to propose that computer assistance is the complete answer as it does have drawbacks as well. However it is an approach that a number of players should consider as they may well be like me and prefer if, if they only gave it a try.
WHAT IS BATTLE ASSISTANCE?
The application of computers at the tactical level of tabletop miniatures is often referred to by the generic name of Computer Moderation as though it were the whole box and dice, even though computers can be applied at several levels of war gaming. I will refer this tactical level as Battle Assistance to distinguish it from the other levels of computer assistance.
Battle assistance for miniatures is the use of a computer system to perform rule interpretation and the assessment and logging of battle effects such as casualties and fatigue. The computer is used to replace the normal game aids that we are all familiar with, such as the paper based rules and dice. An example of the approach with a real game is given at the end of this article.
The aim of battle assistance is to provide a more historical form of wargaming that allows the player to concentrate on the tactics rather than worrying about memorizing the rules, arguing about them and doing the book keeping.
If we leave the rule interpretation and related book keeping to the computer, the assistance system then has the potential to drastically reduce the level of uncertainty and dispute by acting as a kind of umpire after the fashion of the Kriegspiel moderator.
This makes it easier for new players to take up gaming as they don't have to overcome a steep learning curve and suffer several defeats before they begin to learn. It also helps players who want to game over several different periods but who are too daunted (or bored) by the labyrinth of rules. Computer assistance seems to reward the player who has developed a good historical appreciation of the period and can play more intuitively, with reference to tactical concepts rather than rules.
What are the main ways it can help us?
REDUCED RULE COMPLEXITY
In practice it is probably impossible to eliminate rules altogether but I find that good computer assistance can come close. It is possible to say with some confidence that rule complexity has been overcome if you have reduced the rules to no more than one page -- and good assistance systems can do just that. Add to this
some tables for move distances and you have no more than one double sided sheet that can be easily referred to during a game. These rules that the player needs to be aware of can also be relative ly straight forward. For example, that units have an arc of fire of 45 degrees.
When compared with a rule book of about 30+ pages this seems worthwhile. You can introduce a novice to the hobby with only a single game of about one to two hours. When a novice can do this and still stand up well in open battle you have a set of rules that can fairly be said to be "easy to use".
At the same time there need be no compromise of historical accuracy. The system can still handle just as many factors in the form of complex "rules" that it moderates internally. This is transparent to the user.
There is a complication however. As gamers we absorb a considerable body of specialized historical knowledge over a period of years. The lack of this knowledge can be a stumbling block for a novice with little or no knowledge of the tactics of a particular theatre of war. They are now playing a game where victory depends on having some (but not a lot of knowledge of the period rather than a knowledge of a particular set of rides.
I know of no way around this other than providing a short list of selected texts. For example, a couple of hours spent browsing through Paddy Griffith's excellent summary of the American Civil War would be ample background for playing a reasonably well constructed American Civil War assistance system. Consequently, a lack of historical knowledge does seem a small and temporary limitation that novice players can easily overcome. In my experience with beginners entering war games it seems to present little difficulty, especially when compared to battling with a complex set of rules. In fact, part of the enjoyment of gaming comes from gaining this historical knowledge and so there is no real stumbling block here
FOG OF WAR
There is a lot of potential to do this well with computer assisted wargaming. It helps greatly to avoid the problem of knowing too much about what will happen. Instead it puts us in the position of the historical general with his reliance on experience and intuition.
Once the rules are in the computer the gainers can be prevented from possessing this supernatural knowledge. We are then obliged to act more intuitively, based on historical knowledge. Gone are the days when you can place your troops an exact safe distance from the enemy, all because you know what is the precise range for smoothbore muskets or long bows.
Gamers can even be prevented from knowing basic things such as the level of casualties they have inflicted and whether a unit is tiring or faltering, until it breaks in rout. I find individual preferences vary greatly here. Some find it much more fun to have a considerable amount of feedback from the game ready for analysis. They feel it is like knowing the current score in a game of football. Without that "score" you don't really get excited. Others like what they see as a more historical approach where you don't know much about what is happening on the smoke shrouded field, until you place a general with a unit. Options can be given within a system to provide for either a fog of war or a "pea soup of war".
GAME SEQUENCE
At the moment games (including computer assisted games) need to have a sequence to allow for the sensible inclusion of battle effects. For example to assess the effects of defensive firing before melee. It is possible to reduce the problems of a sequence (such as getting out of sequence) by using a computer to control it. However this does not seem to be foolproof yet and still gives the battle a stilted appearance.
With the development of true multiprocessing systems such as OS/2 (i.e. systems that can process more than one program at once) it may be possible to develop a way of doing away with the set sequence altogether and making the game more akin to the true flow of battle. This leap forward could still be over two years away as most home computers do not have such sophisticated software yet.
Taken together these factors can give us a unique way to improve the game.
What Are the Drawbacks?
As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch - and battle assistance is no exception to the rule.
A "loss of mystique" due to the intrusion of the "Beast of Business" is sometimes cited as a reason to avoid battle assistance. However I find that most systems have a number of ways of amply capturing the spirit of the age, such as provide a variety of reports from officers in charge of units that are expressed in the language of the time. These, coupled with some judiciously placed graphics (not present yet in systems I have seen) seem to allow us to dispel the problem of "clinical wargaming". A well designed system should also remove the need for most of the table clutter (dice, rule books, counters etc) and so improve the historical appearance of the game on tabletop. This is a major attraction in my view.
Other players are playing with the mainstream rules is another objection. This one is based on the idea that you will not be able to find partners to play as making die transition to new rules is always quite difficult. However I think you will find that the assistance systems are easy to learn and that you can play them without the relearning overheads associated with normal rules. The other aspect to this is that the hobby as a whole will benefit from these new approaches only if we are a little more adventurous and try them.
Another problem is that the players can get tied up entering data. There are two possible ways around this. One is to have a Game Master (as with the old Prussian Kreigspiel) who enters the data and provides any human moderation needed (but does not need to resolve disputes). Such a role is an advantage really as the
moderator can play the same role as umpire in the old Prussian Kreigspiel and spice up the game by providing additional complications not expected by the players. "No, you cannot cross the stream there. Your scout reports the bottom is quicksand. Keep searching for a ford!". The other is simply to improve the user interface
through the use of aids such as windowing and mouse. This helps make the systems more user friendly and faster, but has some limitations discussed below. In spite of this computer assisted games are fast in my experience. I find 2 to 3 hour conclusive battles common, even for large forces and there need be no sacrifice of historical realism due to simplification.
However I think there are some real limitations and they are mainly to do with the technology currently involved. One player has to have a PC. As PC's are increasingly common and getting cheaper this is not usually a major problem. However I find that many keen players still have PCs that, while only a few years old, have nothing like the latest technology. For example, a some have no hard disk and a number still have no mouse. This means the developer has to aim for the lowest common denominator in terms of features to satisfy most players. A system that was mouse driven only, and so required a hard, disk would at the moment cancel out too many keen battle assistance gamers to be worthwhile.
Once you have a PC two other problems arise. First, you need a power supply and second you need a place to put the PC during the game. Because of these problems, the future for battle assistance seems to me seems to be with the small "palm top" computers. These are very easy to carry around (in your pocket) to a friend's place or to the local war games club. They are also reasonably cheap and have a built in power supply. If you are like my group of friends you are often playing in someone's garage or in a similar confined space with little suitable table space for the PC and a distant power point that requires a long electrical extension cord (which can be a real hazard to trip over).
Restricted accommodation can also be a drawback for a mouse if you don't have a good desk surface and the extra space for a mouse pad. Not many players I talk to have a little tracker ball mouse attached to their PC or a pen type mouse. However there are many ease of play advantages that flow from having a mouse and so the preferred approach is to have either an option for either a mouse or keyboard in the game.
Since these limitations are to do with the currency of the player's technology I expect they will disappear in a year or two. The prevalence of Microsoft Windows as the main DOS computing platform will, I believe, force players to upgrade their hardware and acquire appropriate mouse systems. The future will be with click and point for battle assistance from late 1993 onwards.
The overall structure of computer assisted games can reflect the various levels of warfare quite well by building each one to interface with the levels above and below it.. The results of combat at the battle assistance level can be fed into the higher campaign and strategic levels and vice versa. I have not seen an assistance system that covers all of the following levels yet for miniatures, but I believe the potential is there.
A multilevel approach would also allow gamers to choose the level(s) at which they want to play. As I see it there are four main levels. They could be linked to provide a total war simulation or played independently as stand alone modules. Players could operate at all levels but would be able to game at the level they found most appropriate. Some of us prefer tactical games and would play as generals. Others see themselves more as diplomats or politicians. In a team game you should be able to choose the role you like best.
Battle Assistance (Tactical)
Tactical systems operate over the shortest ground and time scale to support the tabletop gainer playing a battle. Game rounds simulate unit activity over periods of approximately 10 to 20 minutes. The data describing the army at the end of the battle would be used as input into the Grand Tactical level.
Grand Tactical
This would assess the performance of the army between battles and use a much larger ground and time scale such as days or weeks. The characteristics of the commanders and troops from the Tactical phase coupled with information about the distances to be moved, weather, types of supply routes (eg river and road quality) would be used to determine level& of resupply, progress and attrition due to desertion and straggling.
This allows the better field general to gain the advantage prior to the next battle. This level could be independent of maps so that the player can use any they like, or have built in maps for use with movement of armies.
Strategic
This involves the highest level of military activity with ground and time scale appropriate to the movement of several armies over about a month. The success or failure would depend on the achievement of pre-defined military and political objectives and Grand Tactical levels. This is where you march on Moscow, and if the Russians don't surrender you freeze.
Political/Diplomatic
Diplomatic negotiation accompanied by the attempted movement of whole armies over a large time and ground scale similar to that in Diplomacy would provide the highest level of conflict. Additional factors such as propaganda and political influence can be incorporated in the model. Conflict would be handled in the Strategic to Tactical models.
These systems seem to have potential at two levels. The first and the most practical right now is the simple form that acts as a database of players and results. It produces reports such as ranking lists of players and matching for each round. These are already in use at some tournaments to save organizers from too much clerical work. They are mostly home grown to suit the needs of individual organizers.
The second and more futuristic tournament control system would use the multi-tiered total war approach described above. Tournaments could be played at several levels and the battles resolved at the tactical level. Easier said than done but certainly possible.
Apart from the need for such systems to be developed yet, there are other technology limitations that will need to be overcome. To employ such an approach there would need to be either a PC for each game or a network linking the garners into a central computer. That can be done but would involve more cost and setup time than most organizers can justify at the moment. However the rapid lowering of PC costs and related Local Area Network costs does mean that it may be a viable approach in a couple of years at the most. just enough time to develop the integrated games software, perhaps. Military systems that I have seen are now comparable to this so don't scoff! It is more a matter of time, economics and most important changed attitudes before it happens.
Taken all together my view may seem a little far fetched, but I am inclined to think it is the way of the future for many war gamers. The discussion on what form it should take needs to start now for it to come together in the way we want.
BATTLE ASSISTANCE AN EXAMPLE
For an example of battle assistance we have chosen to use the American Civil War system Rally Once More! by Computer Strategies.
Some members of the Sydney based Cumberland Wargames group recently tired the latest version of Rally to see how well it performed. The Cumberland gamers feature ACW games and minicampaigns regularly at their meetings and so are a reasonably solid test group for such a system. The following is a summary of their findings.
Data for two armies (one Confederate and one Union) comes with the game. These army lists can be copied and modified to includes the same unit names, characteristics, officers and command structures as those in the player's armies. Even though both units and officers can be given a comprehensive set of characteristics, this does not take long since Rally has simple set-up screens for modifying your army data and creating command structures.
Since stereotypes of Confederate and Union troops are not used, you can be confident that the points system (which includes officers and troops) fairly reflects the value of your army. For example, Confederates do not tend to have better morale, and Union artillery is not necessarily superior to Confederate. Your army is as you describe it. Flank marches by one or more divisions can be ordered.
In one game, just for fun, both sides decided to have one divisional general on each side with "shortcomings". This is an optional feature in Rally that allows you to nominate a commander who has some problem, such as a weakness for the demon drink. While such a feature can be used just for a tongue in cheek game it does have historical relevance as some notable commanders did succumb to the effects of stress in this and other ways.
Initial orders are given to the officers before the battle begins. Setup was quick and the game went as follows:
The Confederate left wing and central divisions had hold orders and cautious officers, and so occupied their nearest defensive positions. The opposing Union centre and right had attack orders and were led by officers with aggressive personalities. They moved forward rapidly Rally's ground and time scale promotes a fast game. The Confederate right wing division however had attack orders and was led by an efficient officer with a daring disposition. The Union left blocking it had hold orders and a bold, but not very popular officer in command. Rally uses all these factors during a game.
Clearly the Confederates were attempting a divisional outflanking move on their right and the Union were attempting a full frontal attack, while holding on their left. Which side would eventually prevail was to be determined by who made the best use of troops and officers and issued the most appropriate orders. This is because Rally removes -the tedium of handling orders through a chain of command. Rally decides how quickly your new orders are transmitted and how the receiving officer interprets them (if he receives them at all). It also allows you to readily alter the command structure, to relieve officers of their command and to send them to join units to bolster morale.
The preliminary Confederate bombardment seemed to have some impact on morale and fatigue on the Union centre and right; but the rapid Union advance minimized this effect as the Union divisions moved too close to be bombarded without risking the Confederate troops. Rally does not make artillery the all powerful tool that some games do. The Confederate centre and left remained stolidly behind those defensive obstacles that were available. One exposed brigade began entrenching but soon had to abandon its fruitless efforts and form line of battle as the enemy attack advanced too dose for comfort. Rally supports a number of formation changes including the Passage of Lines. This allows you to attack in Column of Brigade lines and, assuming troops and commanders are capable, interpenetrate one unit through others.
The Union advance soon came into contact with a solid firing fine and this began to slow its momentum. In keeping with historical research Rally does not allow ACW troops to charge with impunity. Steady defenders behind obstacles proved a major deterant, especially as their firepower began to take a toll. A faltering, exposed enemy is more likely to retire or even rout in the face of a bayonet charge. When charges are successful Rally observes the historical situation that few casualties result. The losers' morale suffers most. The exception is a vulnerable target (e.g. resting troops or march column) where Rally may decide lots of prisoners are taken.
The first casualty turned out to be the elite Iron Brigade which was left too long in an exposed position under fire from two, and at times three, Confederate brigades that were behind cover. It held on under withering fire for almost half an hour (of game time) before the drop in morale and the high level of fatigue induced by this battering caused it to falter and then rout.
With Rally, units do not fight to the last man. They are soon affected by morale and fatigue as well as losses. Eventually, if not relieved and given the chance to rest, they falter and then rout. Although a routing unit may rally, especially if an officer is sent to join the unit, a unit like the Iron Brigade that has had too much demanded of it is unlikely to recover. In this case it fell back in rout for about 20 minutes (game time) and then was designated "Destroyed". In Rally this does not mean the unit has suffered 100% casualties, it means rather that while the unit may eventually be brought back together (say, that night), it has been effectively destroyed for the duration of this battle.
The Confederate defenders were not suffering as much since they were using Rally historical combination of fatigue effects and varied formation changes (including Rest) to retire tired units and replace them with fresh ones. This helped them to hold a thin defensive line in the face of a powerful Union centre. One fatal misjudgment however led a Confederate brigade to stand down too dose to the advancing Union troops and without a screen. A Union charge scattered them on first contact.
Rally takes into account the state of the unit that is the target of a charge. If the target looks vulnerable (e.g. entrenching, resting, faltering) then the attackers are likely to be aware of this and so are more likely to attack.
As the battle wore on and stress took its toll of commanders the general on the Union right (Confederate left) was incapacitated by drink. Wisely, he was quickly relieved of his command. His Confederate counterpart had succumbed to bad nerves and indecision. His career suffered a similar fate.
On the Confederate right however the attack was pushed home hard. The Union had three brigades, two holding a low hill fine and one which had advanced some distance ahead. This separation proved fatal. The forward Union brigade was surrounded and then softened by steady musket volleys from three confederate brigades. Under threat of multiple charges it was offered the chance to surrender. Rally allows surrenders to be tested for at most points in the battle. In this case Rally assessed that, having suffered badly and being cut off from its own lines the unit would surrender. This was in spite of the fact that its commander was with it. He was not very popular however and Rally does take this into account at crisis points.
This left the remaining two brigades on the Union left leaderless. They began to fall back in disorder when threatened by Confederate charges until a new officer took over their command. Rally supports command changes during battle but they are far from automatic. In the fog of battle an officer (especially a less efficient one) can fail to find the command or suffer other problems that prevent him carrying out the player's intention. The Confederates were now getting behind the Union flank and new Union orders were issued to Retire. Would they take effect in time?
The Confederate victory was mainly a result of formulating an effective battle plan and then implementing it by giving the right orders to the right type of officers. It was the result of using an historical approach, which Rally supports - not a "rules" victory. Rally provides a simplified, fast rules system with minimum player hassle. Players can concentrate on the tactical situation and play with little knowledge of any rules. A player has to use tactical judgement. There is little opportunity to premeasure or foretell an outcome through a knowledge of the rules. This is a major advantage. The rules are mostly known and determined by the computer, not by the players.
This is one in a series of similar games for the IBM compatible PC by Computer Strategies. Others include Napoleonics, Marlburian, Renaissance, Ancients and Fantasy (Lord of the Rings).
Still interested? Then you can send your views to: Clinton Reilly Computer Strategies, 32 Brown St. Bronte NSW, AUSTRALIA 2024 Phone (02) 389-8943 if phoning operator connect.or 010-612-389-8943 (if dialing direct from the UK) 010-612-3898943 (if dialling direct from the USA)
If after considering these issues you feel you would like to contribute to the development of this branch of the hobby, just phone or write your views to the address at the end of this article. The views I express are simply my own and I do not claim to have any monopoly on the truth.
CAMPAIGN & STRATEGIC SYSTEMS
TOURNAMENT CONTROL
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #60
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1993 by The Courier Publishing Company.
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