The previous article (LW 112) showed how to run a campaign without recourse to maps, using a flowchart instead. This one will hopefully expand the idea and provide a few ideas for the individual to produce his own scenario or campaign. One thing you may have noticed from the previous installment is that most battles are fought for some strategic objective, rather than an encounter battle. This, I think, brings an air of strategic realism to the whole thing; you can bring down artillery barrages and fighter-bomber attacks for a dozen moves, but you still have to fight your way on to the objective to win. A large number of objectives are useful to add variety. Usually these are terrain features, and the classic ones appear to be hill lines and ridges, which can then be used as improvised defensive positions for one's own side or as springboards for the next offensive. Then there are bridges, essential as a method of crossing waterways and rivers, which the enemy will try to use as lines of defense. For the modern wargamer there are a host of others which can be used to add interest to games, and which have some importance to mechanized warfare. Airfields Airfields are one such, though their value may vary. WW II fighters, helicopters, and VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier may be able to make do with grass fields, but heavier planes will need a decent surface to set down on. Not only that, but the more sophisticated the aircraft, the greater the degree of technological back-up it will require, adding to the number of rear echelon facilities forming part of such an airfield. You can ground an enemy's aircraft if you can capture his maintenance teams or damage his installations. Oil fields are another likely target, and have been much in the news in the recent Iran-Iraq conflict. Refineries and fuel dumps are also possible objectives. Making the capture of the latter necessary if the player is to refuel his vehicles could lead to interesting scenarios; it a well known fact that tanks aren't much use if you can't start their engines. These installations are highly flammable and care would be needed to capture them intact. Obviously wargamers with battalions of non-smokers would be an advantage. Railways were widely used during WW II for transporting large numbers of men and munitions over long distances, and the protection of one's own rail network and the disruption of the enemy's could become important. This sort of thing was often done by resistance groups, partisans, etc., operating behind enemy lines and destroying key viaducts and the like. Harbors are another installation worth attacking especially if they used as a base for enemy shipping. Many RAF raids were directed at the U-boat bases on the French coast, and the port of Cherbourg was an important objective of both Rommel's Panzers in 1940, and the Americans after the D-Day landings. No doubt other likely targets for attack will spring to mind. All these have one thing in common - they are all efforts to exploit the situation following a penetration of the enemy's main line of defense and could be said to be part of the final phase of the Blitzkrieg strategy (penetration, expansion, and exploitation). Campaigning the penetration would produce a different type of game: the objectives would be to destroy as many enemy troops as possible, or advance a given distance. The details of the scenario would depend very much on the defensive doctrines of the enemy. A couple of examples should explain what I mean. In Italy the Germans used fortified defensive positions such as the Gothic Line, stretching from the west coast to the east. These utilized easily-defended terrain features, strengthened with wire, minefields, anti-tank weapons, and of course as many troops as could be spared. Amphibious landings excepted, the allies had no way of outflanking the line and were forced into difficult frontal assaults. In Russia on the other hand, the Germans did not have the manpower to defend the entire front in strength. Instead, sections of the line would be held by occupying the most prominent feature of the area with a small garrison. In the event of a Russian attack, these troops were expected to hold out while a highly mobile 'fire brigade' held in reserve was rushed forward to stabilize the situation. Anyway, a campaign set in Italy is going to require a different approach to flowcharting than one set in the Ukraine. One thing that may be worth trying, though it adds complications, is to make the army's combat result different from that of the player. I haven't tried this, but I'd envisage something like this: Scale All battle results would be rated on a scale of 2-12; 2 being catastrophic defeat, 12 total victory. At the end of battle the player rates his performance; say he has been fairly successful -- 10. He now throws to dice for the rest of the effect on the army. Suppose he gets 4 -- they've done badly. However, his own result is likely to have an effect on the army's result, and he could modify the army's score by +3 to -3 depending on his own efforts in battle. In this case he might add 2, making the army's overall result 6, which would be a narrow defeat. This sort of idea would need a lot of thought to make it work, and would add a lot more branches to the flowchart. E.g. a successful player and a defeated army, as above. This could result in the player's force being cut off from its own lines. Another battle would be necessary as the player tries to break out and the army ties to link up with him. Or if he doesn't have the petrol, munitions, or simply the necessary military force to effect a break-out, he may have to find a defensive position and hold on while 'High Command' sends a division or two to rescue him. One problem that anyone trying their hand at one of these campaigns will encounter is that of casualty replacement, and replacement of wrecked equipment. As far as the latter is concerned, I have followed the recommendations of T.N. Dupuy in his book 'Numbers Prediction and War' (highly recommended for computerized wargamers as well as modern buffs). At the end of a battle engineers will attempt to recover damaged vehicles and equipment, and will succeed in salvaging those which cannot be disputed by enemy fire. This may create a few problems for the local commander. Does he try to establish a new front line at the furthest point of his advance, or fall back on his reserve troops probably taking fewer casualties, but abandoning those valuable wrecks? Anyway, 50% of AFV's can be repaired, at a rate of 10% per day for 5 days. Artillery and softskins can be repaired faster: 25% per day for 2 days, for a total of 50% repairable. If your tabletop rules go into the details of damage to vehicles then you will probably use your own records of the damage sustained at the end of the battle to determine what you can repair. You may also be able to salvage damaged equipment which previously belonged to the enemy or to other friendly formations. Casualties Personnel casualties are the other problem. I don't go into details of tank crew losses etc., as I find it sufficient to keep track of the vehicles, and since wounds tend to leave the poor infantryman out of action for some time, this is really only worth doing if you are going to campaign with the same formation for several game weeks. I estimate that two thirds of an army's casualties will be wounded, the remainder killed or 'missing'. If you examine the casualty list for any theater of operations you can form your own opinions. The next question is, how long will the wounded be out of action? Is there a doctor in the SWA? If so, perhaps he could be more specific, but for want of better information, I would assume that the wounded be divided into two groups. The first would be the long term wounded, who could expect to be held in hospital for some time, and unable to rejoin their units for, say, two months. The other group are the medium term wounded, and might be fit for action in, say, three weeks. This makes no mention of those with light wounds, but for simplicity I assume that these can be dealt with at divisional casualty clearing stations and the like, and would not be out of action for long. So I don't keep track of them. Then there are routers. Casualties will be high enough in any wargame without having to worry about losing defeated troops. I would suggest that a victorious army recovers its routers immediately, and that a defeated one does over three or four days. The other source of replacements is from newly trained men and new equipment straight from the factory. This is more difficult to formulate rules for, but a few points should be borne in mind by anyone who is encouraged enough to experiment. A unit will be more likely to receive replacements when in a static position than when advancing or retreating at speed. In the former case it would be because the advancing formation outstrips its supplies; in the latter it would be due to the general confusion in the retreat. While Western divisions were kept up to strength, or at least some attempt was made to do so, Russian units, other than those considered elite, would fight until their casualties rendered them ineffective. They would then be withdrawn from combat and new battalions etc., formed. If, after a few battles, you end up with a handful of vehicles which claims to be a division, you should consider that realism has been achieved! Map Movement Another campaigning problem is map movement. I know: with a flowchart campaign there is no need for a map and, it follows, no need for map movement rules. Unfortunately someone is sure to want to try it, so here, for what they're worth, are my thoughts on the subject. I don't envisage hard and fast rules such as 'Cromwells move at 35 kph on second class roads provided they are dry'. Instead why don't you Kriegspiel it. For example, two armored divisions are making separate thrusts against the enemy. Division A smashes through the front, but Division B only succeeds in making the enemy troops opposed to it retreat. Division A will now be facing less organized opposition than B and will advance further, say 40 km and 15 km respectively. This assumes that the enemy will try to make a stand when these distances have been reached. Therefore you simply look at your map and select a likely position where the enemy may attempt to halt the breakthrough. For those interested in rates of advance I would again recommend "Numbers, Prediction and War" which contains advance distances for all levels of enemy opposition, the maximum being about 60 km per day for mechanized troops, though this is subject to several variables such as weather and available air cover. Obtaining support from higher formations in the form of air strikes, artillery barrages and the like is another feature most wargamers would want to include in their campaign. This is best done by envisaging the player's force as part of a larger formation, to whom application must be made for extra artillery support etc. Again an example is the best way to illustrate what I mean. Suppose the player commands a British rifle company of WW II vintage. The battalion of which he is part would consist of four such companies and a support company consisting of mortar, machine-gun and anti-tank sections. The battalion is advancing on a wide front, three companies up, and one held in reserve along with support company. Our player advances along the tabletop, dealing with the enemy as he meets them, but eventually he runs into resistance which he needs heavier weapons to deal with, and he decides to ask for mortar fire on the enemy position. So he gets on the R/T to the battalion commander, who relays the request to the support company commander: most rules will specify a delay for each such communication. Unfortunately our player may not get his mortar fire. There are three companies up front, who may all have requests in, so his chance of getting the barrage right away is little better than 1/3. He may have to wait a move while the mortars fire in support of another company, or he may not get it at all. A dice throw decides what happens. The same principle can be used to decide whether or not the player can get the reserve company sent to his aid; how many supporting air strikes a divisional general can expect; how much armor support a battalion commander will have; and so on. It does require a clear idea of the organization and command structure of the higher formations involved. Since I started to write this I have had a look at the WRG 1950-1985 rules, and discovered a similar system of using the dice to decide how much off-table support is available at any particular move. Hopefully there's enough information here to allow soloists to devise their own campaigns. If anyone has any comments or suggestions on how to improve the system I'd be most interested. Even more so if they have any success in using it. I always fail to take the objectives! Part One of Mechanized Campaigns Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #113 Back to Lone Warrior List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1996 by Solo Wargamers Association. 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