The history of warfare is full of examples of one army or force hiding part of its number. Prudent commanders considered this possibility and scouted thoroughly. Custer is, of course, the negative example, charging blindly into the midst of a vastly superior force. Waterloo provides examples too. Some of the British army was sheltered out of sight, and the Prussians were supposed to be beaten and unable to reach the battle site. Then there are the American carriers at Midway. The problem for wargamers is to find a way (or ways) to simulate hidden movement.
For soloists the solution(s) take even more ingenuity. One note on the definition of the problem: it could also be stated as dealing with an enemy of unknown strength. An enemy force you cannot see is engaging in hidden movement. It also strengthens the enemy forces when it becomes visible.
Let's look first at some regular wargames and then move on to solo play. As I understand it, the professional military used to play wargames using three tables. There was a red team with its table, a blue team with their table and an umpire's table. Only the umpire's table showed all forces involved, and it was located in a separate room. As the red team moved their forces forward, the umpires would place blue forces on the table as they became visible. Given such a setup, three tables in three rooms and a team of umpires, hidden movement is easy to simulate.
What about an informal game with no umpire and one game table? Given a certain degree of trust between players, it can be fairly simple. My sons and I played an ambush game for years. We set up a line of hills with a valley cutting through. The ambusher drew a sketch map of the battle site and noted the location of his forces. They were usually either barbarians lying in ambush against a Roman column or Afrika Korps fighting rear guard against the 8th Army. As the enemy advanced into the trap the ambusher was free to move his troops, but he had to draw the movement on his map.
Often there was a scout or two from the ambushing force visible to the advancing victim. The scout was presumed to signal information to the hidden forces. A wary Roman commander would send out scouts to look behind the hills. Sometimes the threat of ambush stalled the advance of tanks and infantry. Only later did they learn they were only facing one anti-tank gun and a truckload of infantry. But sometimes there was a clank and roar as a tiger tank rolled over the ridges. Of course, once all forces were visible, the ambusher had to show his map and where his forces had been.
The same basic game also could be played solo. In the solo version, the strength of the ambushers was determined by the same device used in the twoplayer version, a deck of cards. We dealt out 13 cards to the ambusher. Only spades counted for his forces. In the ancient game, 1 through 10 equaled infantry and face cards represented cavalry. In the modern game 2- 10 stood for infantry, jacks and queens were anti-tank guns, king was a tank, ace was a tiger tank. The cards were dealt face down so the commander of the advancing force had no idea how many troops or what kind of equipment the ambusher had.
In the solo game I just took the face down cards and put them in hiding places on the game table. As my scouts got in position to see them, the cards were turned over and replaced by the appropriate figures. In this case there is no hidden movement. The hidden forces just appear on the battlefield. Does that matter? If hidden movement isn't seen does it exist? (My apology to the fallen tree.) I maintain that any force popping up at an unexpected place in the battlefield is assumed to be there as a result of hidden movement. Is any of this logical? Am I assuming a sniper sitting still behind a bush has done hidden movement? Awkward that.
Let's make one thing clear. For me at least, wargaming is not logical. It's an exercise in imagination. It takes imagination to see a melee going on among stiff lead figures. It takes imagination to hear a tiger tank's engine roar when it is a solid lead N-gauge model. Solo wargaming is a special case. Not only do we see our cavalry charging over the plain, we play against a deadly foe who is purely imaginary.
To sum it up, solo wargaming is mostly cards, dice and self deception. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Imagination is a lot of fun. Let's get back to the mechanics. Not all hidden movement has to be under cover of hills or trees. I once played a castle siege game using Dungeons and Dragons rules. I had an assassin in my forces. He became invisible and made his way into the castle and stabbed the wizard commanding the castle. I had drawn a map of the castle and sketched his movements; then made a lucky die roll.
The playing card technique described above is simple, but there are some other good devices. In my Flying Tigers and Mig Alley games I use dice. Roll a 6 and there is an enemy plane on my tail. David Orchard laid out an elegant system many years ago in Lone Warrior. He set up a battlefield map, had the attacker write his orders, then roll dice. He had a list of unexpected developments, flank attacks etc. My Romans were nearly wiped out trying to take that hill.
Chance cards can be a very effective device for creating unexpected developments. I used a system of cards, simple blank card squares, to set up variable strength reinforcements in my 1520 Aztecs vs. Spaniards game. Some cards were blank. Other cards had a number. That number was multiplied by a D-6. This system is open to infinite variation. The only limits are the limits of your imagination.
I have saved the best for last. Postal games are the most powerful way to create "fog of war", hidden movement, etc. I have played postal games where I not only didn't know where the enemy was, I didn't know where I was. One game started with a simple map and directions "Go to north." The map did not show -- and I had little idea of what enemy I was facing, but after a few moves, things cleared up a bit. It was a very fun and interesting game.
The postal game Shenandoah has excellent fog of war/hidden movement features. I was giving my best imitation of U.S. Grant, and was advancing on the Confederate depot. If I could conquer it, I won. The Confederate forces blocked my way and repulsed my effort to blast through. I pulled off and moved around their flank, losing contact with them. As my cavalry scouts checked the depot, they reported seeing only a few rebels in the depot.
Cautiously, I recalled the scouts and moved my main army around to the side for an attack. The climax of the campaign came in a head-on clash, which was won - just barely - by my forces. After the campaign was over, the umpire told me the depot was not defended when my scouts looked at it. If they had just entered the depot, it would have been mine. How is that for hidden movement?
Note: None of the above is original. The ideas came from many years of reading Lone Warrior and playing postal games with Solo Wargamers Association members.
Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #137
Back to Lone Warrior List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2002 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