On the tactical level Matrix Games have problems. Unlike the strategic actions, which often seem to be disjointed and sudden, tactical actions seem to be more cohesive and understandable. MGs often lead to rather sudden unexpected actions which just don't fit in most wargamer's perspectives of what tactical actions are like. It seems to me that MG's might best fit into tactical actions not as the primary game system used but as a supporting system to cover those elements of battle that are the most unpredictable - namely spotting, infiltrating, and weird terrain and morale effects. TACTICAL MATRIX Open Fire Patrol Open Fire Dig in Move Fatigue Move Surrender Close to Melee Rally Infiltrate Weather Change Retreat Terrain Change Troops get spread out Morale Change Bog down Consider the above matrix. It has only 17 elements. If it was on a deck of cards, it would not take up a lot of space on a gaming table. The elements of the matrix are basic battle factors that could fit any type of wargame from ancients to WWIII. This is my working model on a tactical matrix. Note that It has no wild cards, since as I said earlier events that are too weird or sudden do not seem to fit In tactical level games. ONE CARD ARGUMENTS Tom Barnes once complained to me that in regular MGs the reasons and result of most matrix arguments were superfluous. He recommended having one card arguments. This idea intrigued me, even though I did not agree that It would be the best way for strategic level MGs to work. We were talking about WWI air combat and how fast and fluid it was. Such combat would best be replayed by fast and fluid rules, which normal MGs are not. (At least normal MGs are not as fast as a diving SPAD) So Tom's argument for one card matrix arguments made sense on a tactical level. We agreed to go our separate ways and think about it. Normal MGs require players to pick an action, a result and 3 reasons. So the player has to think of a logical statement to make with 5 cards from the matrix. Strategic games, like military campaigns or political conflicts, really benefit by the inclusion of reasons. Reasons and results add a lot of spice to the events. player does want this to happen. The German player argues first. "The stupid Americans move up without proper recon," Says the German with a heavy movie accent. He takes a "Move" card from the matrix and plops It down in front of the American Troops. "No they don't," says the American. "We send out a patrol of recon vehicles to check out the hill before we do anything." He pulls a "Patrol" card from the matrix. The two sides argued for the same side. Normal matrix procedures are used to resolve all turns, so the two players will roll off against one another to determine which argument happens. In this case the patrol argument won. So the battle proceeds with the Americans sending up a token force to check out the hill. Of course this soon leads to the Germans opening fire. The Recon units are horrible out gunned and are soon wiped out. The German player is happy, and so is the American. After all, it could have been his whole command that got ambushed. The players decide to only use matrix arguments at critical moments in this game so the next round of arguments do not happen until after the two sides are locked in a fire fight. The German player says that he want to attempt to infiltrate some men onto the American flank without their knowing about it (i.e. so they can not be shot at while they move into position). The German player could have done this without an argument, but the Americas could fire on the flankers and move men up to counter them. If the argument passes then the American player must ignore the infiltrators until they open fire on him or are spotted via a matrix argument. The German player grabs the "Infiltrate" card. "My infantry on the left flank infiltrates half its number onto the American's flank. Take that you nasty people." The America player picks up an "Open Fire" card. "You try to infiltrate, but you are spotted when you reach the church yard and we open fire on you!" The German wins, so he starts marching his men into their new positions. Pretty soon the American calls for another round of matrix arguments to counter the risk from the infiltrators. He might try to spot them again. They are closer now, and thus easier to see. He could have their troops get spread out back along the path they've Just marched over (so they will have to spend time collecting their troops and rallying them). He could even order that one of the German units shoots too early, or a captured German reveals his units movements, or something else. After the matrix arguments are said and done it's the miniatures rules that will resolve the battle. The matrix is only there to add spice and unpredictability to the whole affair. They also make it possible to describe complex course of action. that I as game maker have probably not even considered. In a very real sense, a matrix is a vocabulary of words that can be manipulated to say what ever you want it to. One card matrix arguments cannot work in the same way. One card arguments need to be much more direct and explainable. Since there are no other cards/elements to fill in the gaps in the logic of a players argument, arguments can not be as detailed or subtle as larger scale matrix arguments. in a way# one card arguments seem to be much more like the orders we typically give our little men in most wargames. "My men advance on the enemy!" "We open fire when they come into range." "General Dyer rallies the routers at the cross roads." The GDW game "Command Decision" has players use cardboard counters with various orders written on them to command men to act. In that game, if the troops are in good shape, they follow their orders without a second thought. If this were a one card argument MG then the player would give orders in the same manner but-he could never be certain of the outcome. Tactical factors like shooting ability etc. are best handled by standard miniatures rules, but psychological factors such as seeing the enemy, obeying orders, and getting tired might do well as a MG. Imagine playing a game of Command Decision in which orders were really one card matrix arguments. The outcome of an attack might be very different that the fire power abilities would suggest. Since a Tiger tank that never fires is not as powerful as a Sherman tanks that does. The above tactical matrix has the very simple straight forward elements required for one card arguments. "Open fire" says exactly what It means, so does "move". Some of the other elements are much less defined, like "Troops get spread out" or "Morale change". The player has to further define these cards as to what they mean in game terms. The reasons for why this action should happen are the actions that have happened tactically up to that point. So if one player argues that the enemies men surrender, after the two sides have been locked in a heavy fire fight for several turns, then this might be an average argument for that happening. A side opening fire on a known enemy is generally very strong. Infiltrators are more likely to achieve surprize on dark moonless nights, etc. EXAMPLE OF PLAY The Germans are dug in on a hill position somewhere in France. They are camoflauged and hope to escape detection by the advancing Americans. The wargame table is fully set out, so that all the players from both sides can see everything. The American player knows that the Germans are out there, so he does not want to just go blundering into an ambush. The German  more say in what is going on, they are more likely to take ownership of the game. They get interested, and Involved as an active perticipant rather than sitting at the game table Just watching your men get slaughtered. Players may chose to not use tactical MGs at all in games and have not lose as a result of it. or they could use then in a limited way, as described In the example. It really doesn't matter since MGs are just one of many tactical decision making methods. SOLO GAMES: TACTICAL DECISION DILEMMAS Solo wargaming is a wide spread pass time done the world over. There is a dilemma in it though. One is always at risk of giving one side an unfair advantage over the other side (i.e. I favor the Dervishes so the British generally have a hard time In my games). A tactical MG might be a good solution to the fairness question. I've used MCs for several years to play solo wargames. Often the first tryout of many of the my Matrix Games was in a solo game. It seems to me that the best way to explain how I do this is by an example. Recently I got interested in De Soto's incursion into the US southeast in the 16th century. They fought several battles against the natives and came very close to being wiped out. I wanted to try this out, so using my Stupid Simple Rules I laid out a battle field. Before the battle started, I decided that every turn I would allow each side to make one argument per major battle element. Arguments would be used to give all orders as well as give weird nasty results to the other side. The chance each argument would have to succeed would be based on my assessment of the tactical situation, but in general I would leave them as normal arguments (i.e. succeeds on a 3 or less on 1d6). The Spainish had a slow moving Tercio of Infantry and a unit of cavalry. The Native Americans had 6 units of peasants and a unit of men at arms. The Spanish plan was to have the Cav go out wide and allow the Natives to swarm the Terclo. The horsemen would then swoop in and pick off any peasant units that were waivering. The Native plan was to split the Spanish up and swarm them separately. The game started with the Spanish ordering their units to Move forward. I rated this as a very strong argument. The Natives argued to split their forces into two groups which seemed strong to me but not very strong since it diminished their fighting power. Both happened, so the two forces started maneuvering towards one another. Once started moving, then men would keep on moving until they were stopped by an argument or a fight. This freed up the arguments to be used to toy with the enemy. The Spanish side tried to fish for the advantage that the Natives were deathly afraid of the horses (Morale Change). The Natives on the other hand tried separate the two Spanish units by arguing that the Tercio bogged down and thus the horsemen soon left them behind. The Natives were able to lure the horsemen far away from the Tercio, by splitting their forces and slowing down the infantry. When the Tercio came into 10 inch range of the Natives, the Spanish argued that they stopped and opened fire on the enemy. The Natives argued that half their men joined the fire fight while the others continued to move forward as before. The Spanish horse argued to charge (close to melee) with the natives to its front. The natives tried to stop the charge by bogging it down, but failed to win the conflicting rolls (i.e. the two arguments opposed one another so one had to happen). The Cav was able to drive off one of the peasant units in this way, but was drawn even further from the Tercio. The Spanish fire achieved little without Cav support to exploit the temporary weaknesses it induced. Native fire was even less effective. The advancing Native increased their pace to a charge by an argument that got all the natives moving forward again. Melee was soon begun. The Tercio was completely surrounded but doing well for a while. The Cav finally turned around from its skirmish but was two turns out from the Tercio at a charge. None the less they did charge (via a charge argument). If the Cav had been closer then they could have driven off the peasants weakened by the melee. But in the two turns it took to get get back to the fray, the Tercio was steadily cut down. The Natives argued that the horsemen would lose their fighting spirit and retreat from the field. This was a weak argument but it won, so the Tercio was trapped without support. A few of the Spanish infantrymen did survive by a matrix argument but by the miniatures rules the unit was soon reduced to nothing but a nasty grease spot on the board. Each turn I made arguments that I felt were "good" arguments for that side on that turn. In the end it was obvious that separating the Spanish horse from the infantry was decisive. The arguments that did this were all made by the Native side, so I didn't just dump on the Spanish plan. The Cav charge on the enemy to their front did take then further away from the Infantry but succeeded in destroying a Native unit by morale checks. What was decisive was the decision made by the Cav commander to abandon the infantry. Oops! I guess we'll have to court marshal that man. Feel free to try out this technique in your solo games. It can be very fun. Back to Experimental Games Group # 20 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1992 by Chris Engle This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com