As a newcomer to the SWA, and just from browsing through my first issue of Lone Warrior, it looks to me like most solo wargamers approach their hobby in a rather haphazard way. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just a hobby, after all. But for what it's worth, I thought I'd share a few philosophical points here.

What is a wargame, really?

It's amazing how many people regard wargames (and I'm using the term "wargame" loosely here, to include role-playing games and such) as just another type of game. To these people, the only difference between backgammon and their favorite wargame is that backgammon happens to be simpler and more abstract.

To me, there's a world of difference. A wargame is basically a miniaturized, stylized, structured representation of military action. First and foremost, when we play a wargame we vicariously experience warfare. It's quite obvious to me that this is what wargaming is all about for most of us: a means of experiencing warfare in our imagination and on the tabletop.

But because some people lose sight of this fundamental difference between wargames and other types of games, the wargaming hobby now includes some peculiar phenomenon. There are tournaments, for those who are mainly interested in competition.

There are "beer and pretzels" games for those who like simple, fast-paced problem-solving exercises. And there's a curious breed of wargamer called the "rules lawyer," who evidently likes wargames mainly for their complexity - because a complicated rules set gives him a big "bag of tricks" to draw upon and surprise his opponents with.

I haven't taken a survey, but I would think that solo wargamers are generally free from such peculiar approaches to the hobby. When you play a wargame by yourself, you're well aware that you're doing it just to enjoy the imaginative experience. Most of us would not consider playing both sides against each other in a solo game of backgammon; yet we very much enjoy playing wargames that way.

And we know why. It's because there is a fundamental difference between these two types of game. Backgammon - like chess, bridge, and other games of its kind - is a problem-solving contest for the intellect. Wargames, in contrast, are primarily exercises for the imagination.

Why play alone?

Since most wargames are designed for two (or more) players, why do we "lone warriors" play them solo? Some of us may be victims of circumstance (i.e. there are no other wargamers in town) - but with the abundant opportunities for postal and e-mail play, that's not much of an excuse anymore. Clearly, many of us play solo because we choose to.

Some of us may choose solitaire because we're hopelessly introverted or antisocial. But I doubt that many of us are xenophobic. So, if it's not fear that drives us into solitude, what is it that attracts us to solo wargaming? To me, the answer is quite evident. If wargames are primarily exercises for the imagination, as I've suggested above, then playing a wargame is very much like reading a novel or watching a movie or multimedia presentation. And one does not need other people around to enjoy a good novel or movie. In fact, having other people around is likely to be distracting (have you ever had to shush your neighbor in a noisy cinema?)

When you play a wargame alone, both sides against each other, it's like choreographing military actions. All the drama and conflict is there, just as it's there in a movie or novel; and as a bonus, you get to manipulate the units and create your own story line. What could be more delightful to an active imagination?

Imagination

Role-players may argue that multi-player games are even more enjoyable, because it's like improvisational theater; each player contributes images and dialogue from his own imagination, so that the whole experience is intensely satisfying for all participants. Never having played such a game, I can't say anything one way or another about that. But I can say from years of experience that imagination is what makes wargaming fun.

Furthermore, I'd say competition tends to distract from the imaginative aspect of wargaming. The minute you sit down to a head-to-head game against a live opponent - or even a computer's "artificial intelligence" (AI) - you become so preoccupied with winning that you forget you're supposed to be vicariously experiencing the warfare of some historical or fictional setting. And once you're wrapped up in the concept of winning or losing, the difference between wargames and games like backgammon becomes blurred. Essentially, you end up playing a very complicated version of chess with dice; and to me, that is not true wargaming at all.

Wargaming does not require competition; it only requires conflict. Conflict makes for drama, which accounts for excitement and enjoyment. But conflict is always present in wargames, just as it is always present in novels and movies. Playing a wargame competitively may heighten the conflict by adding a new dimension to it; but that "new dimension," in my opinion, interferes with the elegance of conflict that's naturally there.

How do you solo?

As the "Methodologies" section of Lone Warrior indicates, there's more than one approach to solo wargaming. Are some approaches better than others? It all depends on what you're after, of course. To each his own. But in a recent issue, one writer's statement irked me a little. He said his skirmish rules were simple and "therefore ideal for solo play." Is that true? Are simple games ideal for solo play?

Among the many boardgames on my closet shelves are "Gettysburg" (an intro-level game) and "Advanced Squad Leader" (ASL - a very detailed, complicated WW II game). Which is the best for solo play? To my mind, there's no contest; ASL is superior by far. "Gettysburg" is much more accessible. I can pull that game down and be up and running with it in minutes, even though I haven't played it in a year or so. But I can also finish the Confederate turn in a matter of minutes, whereupon I have to turn right around and make the Union moves.

Then, next thing I know, I'm back to taking the Confederate turn right away. And so on. It's such a superficial, fast-moving game that it's almost like playing backgammon by myself. All in all, not much fun.

ASL, on the other hand, would be very difficult to get back into. It'd take me all afternoon to refresh myself on the rules; and then I'd need at least a few practice games to get back up to speed. But when I play ASL, I'm immediately engrossed in all the rich detail. Each turn consists of eight phases, and a lot can happen in each phase. A typical player-turn takes me about twenty minutes; and when that time has elapsed, I'm happy to switch sides and enjoy another player-turn from a refreshing new angle. So, based on my experience, I'd say detailed, complex wargames are ideal for solo gaming. Simple, superficial "beer and pretzels" games don't have enough meat to sink your imaginative teeth into.

Time and Space

Of course, If you're pressed for time or space, simple games might suit you better just because they're easier to set up, play, and put away.

Or, if you're planning to devise an AI for the game, then the simpler the better: it's easier to design a good AI for a game with few moving parts. But I've already said my piece about competition in solo wargames: I'm averse to it, even in the form of an AI.

For me, the bottom line is this: A good solo game is one that's a lot of fun when you just play both sides against each other. If I find that's not true of a particular game, I'll just look for another game. It's a waste of time to try correcting the problem by devising a special solo system. Such systems are awkward at best and usually add an element of artificial competition which detracts from the imaginative enjoyment. I don't need any artificial competition standing between me and the military action I'm trying to experience.

Beyond Solitaire

For all I've said here about wargaming being primarily an imaginative experience, I must admit that whenever I play a solo game I'm thinking of it as good practice. Practice for what? Well, for the day when I finally convince a friend to try the game, or when I break down and visit a club or make contact with a fellow gamer in town.

Dyed-in-the-wool role-players may enjoy games in which everyone is on the same team and there are no winners or losers. But I don't care for that myself. As a matter of fact, one of the things I like best about wargames is that there always is a clear winner and loser. In real war, it's often hard to tell who won a given battle; sometimes it's just a question of who limps off the field first after all the slaughter.

But in a wargame, the victory conditions are always crystal clear, so as a player you always have something specific to shoot for. And since the victory conditions are clear and the game is nicely structured, it's also possible to measure your skill level. In your quest for excellence, you watch yourself improve. After a while, you may get the urge to test your skill against that of other players.

True, that means engaging in competition, which I've said detracts from the imaginative enjoyment of a wargame. But by the time you've developed your skill to where you're eager to compete, you've probably already gotten most of the imaginative experience you're ever going to get from the game anyway.

If not, or if you find the competition doesn't suit you (maybe because your skill level wasn't as high as you thought it was), you can always return to solo play. In any case, for what it's worth, I do find that the idea of practicing for a "real" (two-player or multi-player) game is a major motivation for me to enjoy solo wargaming.

It's also another reason I dislike AIs. When you play both sides against each other, you're practicing for the "real" game you'll play against a friend someday. But when you play a game specifically designed for solitaire, the only opponent you'll ever have is the AI.

Have it your Way

All of the foregoing has, of course, been nothing more than one slice of my personal wargaming philosophy. Its only purpose is to offer food for thought to those like me, who tend to reflect on such things. Each individual wargamer will have his own set of likes and dislikes, and they may or may not coincide with mine. But maybe the ideas I've outlined above will spark some thought, and maybe some discussion.

Anyway you like to do it, keep at it and enjoy!