I have been experimenting with ideas for hidden movements in solo war game campaigns for quite a while. The methods I use are based around the idea of having real and dummy markers on the campaign map. The real markers represent real enemy forces while the dummy markers represent nothing of significance and are merely decoys. One of the solo campaigns I have running at the moment is a Russo-Japanese naval war game (1905). In this game I command the Japanese forces while the Russian actions are programmed using a set of rules. The Russian forces operate mostly out of Port Arthur and try to disrupt Japanese operations to secure the Korean ports. The solo rules randomly generate Russian fleets that exit Port Arthur on a range of missions which vary from scouting operations to “seek and destroy” orders. The Russian fleets are made up from randomly selected squadrons of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. The number of each type of squadron in the fleet depends on the mission the ships have to complete. Each squadron of ships based at Port Arthur has three cards. On one side of the card is written the type of squadron (i.e. battleship, cruiser or destroyer) and on the reverse of ONE of the cards is listed the ships in that squadron. The other two cards are left blank; they are dummies. The cards are shuffled and kept with the ‘squadron type’ side up. When a Russian fleet is being assembled the cards are selected according to the squadrons required for the mission but at this stage I do not now how many of the squadrons are real and how many are dummies. If the Russian fleet is intercepted by a Japanese fleet, then I turn over the cards and actual ships in the Russian force are revealed. The campaign has progressed well. So far I have had three naval battles, two of which were resolved with the help of our very own ADC service and one being played as a solo game. Recently another battle was looming… A Russian fleet on an ‘aggressive patrol’ mission has slipped out of Port Arthur and its random route succeeded in bypassing my attempts to intercept it. It was not a huge fleet but enough to want to keep an eye on as it held one battleship squadron card, one cruiser squadron card and a destroyer card. However, as it had headed further out into the East China Sea and I had a Russian cruiser squadron to deal with, it was left to go for the time being. Having sunk most of the cruisers I then turned my attention to ‘aggressive patrol’ fleet, which was now heading back to Port Arthur. It should be easy enough to catch it on its way back in. Suddenly, against the odds, the Russian fleet steamed on an easterly course heading straight into the Tsushima Strait and for the Japanese held port of Fusan. Looking at the campaign map I saw I had some ships there: a destroyer squadron. It might be enough with a few weak coastal batteries in the forts to back them up. Better check the weather: Bad - “destroyers risk damage if they put to sea, no torpedo firing”! So the destroyers are useless and the coastal batteries would be no match for a battleship squadron. I pondered the problem of what to do during the week as I prepared for the battle at the weekend. If the destroyers stayed in port there was a good chance the shore batteries would be unable to protect them and they would be ‘sitting ducks’. I could run for the next port but that would risk damage in the stormy weather and allow the Russians to occupy Fusan. In the end I decided I would leave the port and risk the heavy swell to keep moving and minimise hits but stay near Fusan to await the outcome of the exchange of fire with the forts and Russian ships. Now for the Russian orders. I turned over the battleship squadron card; it was a decoy. Great, no battleships, the forts may be able to defend Fusan. Next I turned over the cruiser squadron card, blank, no Russian cruisers, good news. Last I turned over the destroyer card; a dummy! No Russian forces were revealed; the whole fleet was a phantom. So for all that planning and preparation I didn’t even get a battle. Was it a waste of time? Not really, as the suspense kept me amused and, in fact, these false alarms seem to be a realistic simulation of actual campaigns. Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #139 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