Usually my method of wargaming consists of 'Friday Night at the Fights.' Face to face, gut-wrenching, blow 'em up gaming with real, live opponents. The bad weather we experienced here in the northeast (U.S.) this winter really cut into the number of times I actually gamed. Even though I thoroughly enjoy painting, there are just so many figures a person can do before this becomes mundane. I guess I need to play and not work during my down time. I work two jobs, have a hobby related business, and try to keep up with my professional reading. The solution I've fallen back upon is solo gaming, both conceptually and actually on the table top.

Conceptual solo gaming is, perhaps, what others might describe as scenario construction. Using paper and pencil I attempt to map out an area which can be reasonably gamed given my resources of buildings and other terrain and available table space. The very nice part about this time is that I can create much larger environments and imagine an engagement in just a portion of the world I've created.

As an example, if I want to refight the panzer penetration of a sector of the Polish frontier in regimental strength (a current exercise of mine) I first carefully research the historical setting and examine possible orders of battle. Generally I do this anyway but I find it particularly satisfying to think out what data I need and then do the research necessary to track down what I need.

Starts With Map Work

Usually the conceptual plan will start with the map work. More than just a set of lines representing boundaries, roads and rivers, I want my map to be a visual record of what the place looks like. For example, what does a local town look like? Is the terrain rolling land? Are there ravines? Woods? Swamp lands? How did these features effect the combat that took place there? I could refight an historic battle or do fantasy or sci-fi. I prefer the first choice.

After establishing the parameters of the physical and geographic world, I determine the relative parameters of the troops I intend to use in the forthcoming battle. If I intend to fight on the regimental level conceptually, I need to determine the practical size to which this battle can be reduced. Since I've endeavored to raise my troops in recognizable units, it is relatively easy to decide what force profile will be involved. For the early war period, the German infantry available is in company strength. So is the available panzer force. I also have similar numbers and organization for the Poles. At what level do I want this game to take place - company, platoon, or squad?

I can make this decision very rationally or I can add a level of uncertainty by the deft use of those die rolls every solo gamer employs. For example, let's assume that I've decided to use a company of attackers with support to assault a prepared defensive position held by a platoon. My preference would be to use a percentile die to determine the existing forces available. Since we know the German policy of training each person in the squad to use the LMG this weapon would never 'go away'. The defenders would also be effected by the same attritional die roll but it would be possible for the LMG to be removed with an unfavorable roll. Supports could be generated similarly. One key for me is to know what these actually are and to make the choices very realistic.

What does this say about me or, collectively, the solo wargamers who thrive on this intellectual activity? Very clearly most of us enjoy the quiet moments that wargaming produces. We also share a desire to be in control of our gaming to a very high level. These two pieces are very important reasons why many of us choose to wargame in this way. I also believe that something else is at work too. Many unpleasant moments can be eliminated and confrontations avoided by simply working through the situation in a solo fashion.

At this point, the fact remains that we may have planned the combat level, determined the terrain, and even determined the roles and objectives of each side but he haven't actually determined how we'd play the game. Prior to beginning the game, I would determine what I call the "AA" factor. No, this is not a reference to anti-aircraft potential. My conception is that it represents the Action Abilities each leader in the chain of command possesses. This includes the ability to process information (issue orders, call in support, receive reports from the front, move reinforcements in response to changing situations etc.), motivate the troops, and deal with morale problems. In short, the ability to handle any matter which a commander might have to deal.

Obviously, this is a short-hand method but one which I think has some merit. The AA factor assigned to a leader is a number from one to six in which the lower number reflects an untrained, uninspiring leader and six represents the battlefield abilities of a Rommel or a Patton. To this number I add or subtract modifiers for troop condition (training, morale, fatigue), and then add a small modifier for the 'luck' factor. As this is still a work in progress, I hesitate to put them down on paper. However, let me see if I can describe what it might look like as I attempt to move a company of German infantry forward.

Forward!

Let us assume that my company commander is of average ability. This would give his basic Action Ability a numeric function of '3'. This is the unaltered number used to control that number of squads without considering the unit's condition and training. Considering that he might have as many as thirteen or fourteen squad-size units under his command, that is not a whole lot of Action Ability. This number should be modified by the following factors. Each factor gives a numerical modifier from a low of minus 2 to a high of plus 6.

Training: ranging from untrained (Russian factory militia) at -2 to elite (US rangers) at +6
Morale: ranging from despondent at -2 to fanatic at +6
Fatigue: ranging from exhausted at -2 to fresh at +6.
Luck: roll 1D10. Results of 1 or 2 equals a +1 modifier; result of 10 equals a -1.

My assumption is that since the mathematical midpoint of the first three factors is 2, with a small luck factor included, this would usually allow a commander to push most of his units into the fray. In addition, I like to give my platoon commanders and squad NCOs an occasional +1 to represent the ability of lower level leaders to interpret and execute orders from above. I would use this sparingly and probably not at all with Russians. You should apply your own sense of fairness when making this determination. Fresh troops, for example, are pretty obvious but how does one become exhausted? Each player should work that out by his own lights.

Having established the level of Action Ability, what can I do in my schizophrenic solo-gaming world? What actions can I undertake? I can use one Activity Point for a variety of command functions. My CO can transmit requests for reinforcements, call for air support, or plot fire missions by the various indirect fire assets available. Or the Activity Points can be used to move squads forward towards the enemy. Activity Points can be used to issue offensive pinning fire or order a fighting withdrawal. Activity Points are also used to complete a wide variety of engineering tasks. With the exception of defensive fire, just about any action taken by squads needs to be supported by an Activity Point.

After this process of determining troops and Activity Points we then get to the actual play. My first stage involves initial deployments which are done on simple maps. Simplicity is a relative word. If playing a game on the open farm lands of Poland, my map might have very few topographical features. If we are fighting in my fictitious town of Martinsberg, each town building is represented in some detail.

Whatever area is being used by the defender is covered in a 5 X 10 grid which I then use to deploy my defenders. I use a deck of 100 index cards and write down the names of my defending squads on as many cards as I need, i.e. 10 squads yields 10 cards. The deck is then thoroughly shuffled and two cards are dealt to each of my fifty grid boxes. When I turn the cards over, that will represent whether there are defenders present in that grid box or not.

Yes, this does present some problems such as key areas undefended or several groups or defenders located in a relatively minor position. However, this could represent the positions that units had been assigned by battalion or regiment, where they fell back to after a hard pounding, or alternatively, their position after an assault. I always reserve the right to move a few of my units to "logical" map positions after the initial dispositions.

My attackers are deployed rationally. Start lines are designated, objectives declared, and other plans made. I will determine what upper echelon assets are available and how they will be deployed. Since the game system I normally play, Battalions in Crisis, has a specific order in which things happen, I can follow that menu of events with a fair degree of confidence.

There are a few changes which I have installed for greater realism. For example, I use an opportunity fire rule which Battalions does not provide and I have modified the rules for morale and incidental damage occurring to AFVs making them easier, and, I hope, also more realistic. Anyway, troops must at least begin to function as ordered. Of course, as General Grant once noted, plans usually cannot be followed after they are initiated and I allow for that in the way I play out the game I develop.

It is my belief that troops on the game table, or solo player's map, ought to reflect reality. Reserves need to be placed, realistic jump off points established, achievable goals designated. If my original assault falters, I use a device to call up the reserves. Basically, I "borrowed" an idea from Soldat, a game system similar to Battalions in scale. If I am using radio communications to bring up reserves, I will roll a die and determine if the attempted communication was successful. Occasionally it might be intercepted - an interesting dilemma for the already schizophrenic solo gamer to resolve. Phone communications might also fail but are generally more secure.

The very nice part about all of this is that the solo player can control to some extent the way a rules system plays out without argument. Sometimes during solo play I resolve a problem one way, think about it later, and redo it with the new interpretation. The nice feature about all of this is that it can occur without the hassle of dealing with rules lawyers. That's probably the part about gaming with my club that I dislike the most. It's bad enough when I have to admit to myself that I "blew it". I really can't stand doing this in public!

Final Remarks

Some final remarks are in order. First, while I believe that for me a great part of the fun is in the planning, I do enjoy seeing how well I can solve tactical problems in the test-tube atmosphere provided by the solo wargame. Although my recent affairs have been in the realm of World War II gaming, I have enjoyed similar applications of conceptual gaming followed by table top engagements in the American Revolution and American Civil War. The important focus for me is historical. Rules, scenarios, and the vagaries of chance all will follow if appropriate care is taken to get the story "right." A good solo game provides opportunities for all these elements - planning, play, and historical accuracy - to be achieved.