INTRODUCTION Solo wargaming, while not the same experience that face-to-face gaming with our comrades provides, is still enjoyed by many miniatures gamers for a variety of reasons. Some gamers prefer the freedom of pitting a few regiments against each other on a moment's notice, without having to deal with the logistics of gathering and transporting themselves and their miniature armies to another location (or worse yet, having to straighten up the house for guests!). Others use solo wargaming as a testing ground for new rules, scenarios, miniatures, terrain, or basing systems. Still others enjoy the freedom that solo wargaming provides - freedom from the schedule constraints of other players, or freedom from having to argue each point of the rules ad nauseum with the local "rules lawyer." For whatever reason, solo wargaming provides an enjoyable and useful adjunct to the normal gaming routine. THE PROBLEM While solo gaming eliminates the overhead of dealing with another human being, it also lacks much of the thrill of facing a live opponent. Information (or "intelligence" in military terms) about enemy or friendly force placement, equipment, movement, morale, etc. is perhaps more of a determining factor in the outcome of a battle than are tangibles like body count and bullets expended. Since most historical miniature game systems do not (cannot) withhold information from the players and allow them complete control over their forces, the element of surprise is lost in a solo wargame. Unless the solo contest is "fixed" by significantly unbalancing the quantity and/or the quality of the opposing forces, too many solo wargames become predictable slugfests that end in a frustrating stalemate. Solo gamers who want an enjoyable gaming experience but who also want more of an opportunity to exercise the "art of war" need some help. In this article, I'll describe a system that works well for me, using programmed scenarios and rules that implement a random sequence of play. ELEMENTS OF ENJOYABLE SOLO WARGAMING The four essential elements of a historical miniatures wargame are; 1) opposing miniature armies; 2) a map/battlefield/terrain board; 3) a scenario, and; 4) rules. I will assume that the solo gamer is already well-equipped with miniatures and terrain, so all that remains are an interesting scenario and a set of rules which work well for the solo player. PROGRAMMED SCENARIOS FOR SOLO WARGAMING What is a "programmed scenario"? In brief, a programmed scenario specifies many of the reactions and decisions made by one or both players based upon events that occur during the game. The typical two-player scenario simply sets the stage, describes the victory conditions, and then generally allows both players to control their forces at will. In a programmed scenario, the options available to both sides during the course of the game are more limited and can change either at random or depending on pre-determined responses to conditions or events. For a solitaire game, the solo gamer assumes command of one side of a programmed scenario (the "player's side") and is still able to exercise relatively free control over the forces available to that side. When playing the other side (the "programmed side") the solo player must follow strictly the actions and responses described in the scenario. A programmed scenario does not specify every possible action and reaction by the programmed side, it only provides somewhat general instructions to represent the opposing forces' reaction to major events. Of course, the solo player must control the detailed movement, firing, etc. of both sides according to whatever rules are being used, but the "big picture" is controlled by the dictates of the scenario. Like the typical two-player scenario, a programmed scenario describes how forces are deployed initially, what forces are available as re-enforcements and if and when they arrive on the battlefield, what the objectives are and the "mission" for each side, what losses each side considers acceptable, what type of attack or defense each side must execute, and other key aspects of the game. What differentiates a programmed scenario from a typical two-player scenario are the reactions to specific events that must be followed by the programmed side. These events are well-defined "triggers" to actions that the programmed side must follow. Usually these involve enemy actions like enemy forces arriving at or moving to within a specified distance of a landmark, enemy forces firing on friendly forces for the first time, the loss of a key leader or commander, losses reaching a specified level (e.g. 25%), etc. The well-written programmed scenario is organized so that the solo gamer knows what events to watch for, but has not yet read what the specific reaction of the programmed side will be (at least not the first time through!). There may be a variety of possible responses on the part of the programmed side, and the specific response is resolved by a die throw. The solo player never knows exactly what the "opposing" (programmed) side will do in response to particular development, which is exactly the element that is normally missing from a solo wargame. For example, a programmed scenario may pit the Red (programmed side) versus the Blue forces (player's side) in a meeting engagement of a re-enforced company of medium tanks each. The player assumes the role of the Blue commander while the Red forces are under the control of the programmed scenario. At the beginning of the scenario a map is randomly generated, and a key objective, a small hamlet, is located at the center of the map. Additional dice rolls reveal that the scenario requires that 25% casualties (routed or destroyed) is acceptable to Red forces, and Red will press the attack toward the key objective as long as losses do not exceed this level. Furthermore, the type of attack Red will employ (again determined by a die roll) is a "cautious advance." The solo gamer will need to judge what this (and other directives) means in terms that are applicable to the particular rules being used. For example, a "cautious advance" by Red forces may mean that no "double time" movement is allowed for Red troops or vehicles, or it may mean that any Red forces that are fired upon for the first time will immediately cease movement and eliminate any threats before proceeding. Another die roll determines that Red must place 50% forces on the left of his front, then the Blue side (player) places all of his forces, then a die is rolled and the result is that a further 25% or Red's forces are deployed on the left and the remainder form a mobile reserve to be released only if Blue forces are seen within 12" of the hamlet. Once play begins, certain events will trigger additional reactions by the Red player. A well-written programmed scenario will allow the solo gamer to play the scenario without "reading ahead" and spoiling the surprises! This may include such events as the loss of 10% of Red forces, or Red forces successfully spot Blue forces crossing a certain road or entering a town, etc. This is the "programmed" part of the programmed scenario - the "artificial intelligence" that lurks in the back of the solo gamers mind and sends him back to the text of the scenario to determine what the programmed side will do in response to his own actions. Lately I have been solo gaming using Charles Stewart Grant's book Programmed War game Scenarios. This very useful and creative book was originally published in 1983 but is still available from the Wargames Research Group through on-line outlets such as Wargames, Inc (www.speartorifle.com). Grant's book combines a number of elements of solo wargaming into a variety of scenarios that can be applied to any of three broad periods - Ancient, Horse and Musket, and Modern. The scenarios are not specific to any set of rules, but they require only a minimal amount of interpretation to adapt to your favorite rules. Each scenario pits two forces (Red and Blue) against each other and the solo player can opt to play either side. RULES FOR SOLO WARGAMING The other essential component of an enjoyable solo gaming experience is a set of rules which lend themselves to solo gaming. What are the attributes of a set of rules that work well for solo wargaming? Well, first allow me to state a few thoughts about what makes any set of rules work at all. The most enjoyable rules and scenarios maintain an element of uncertainty without artificially unbalancing the game. For instance, players (even solo players) should expect that a well-equipped, well-led force of superior number will usually defeat an inferior force. This does not mean that the occasional "surprise" should not occur. In fact, it is these occasional anomalies that become the legends of military history. Whether these anomalies are the result of individual or collective acts of bravery, decisively-superior weaponry, natural events or "acts of God", or a combination of some or all of the above, they do sometimes occur. How else to explain the successful defense of Rorke's Drift by less than 100 British regulars against 4000 Zulu warriors, or SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Michael Wittman's Tiger-borne rampage against the British 7th Armored Division at Villers-Bocage? So it should be in miniature gaming. Listen to a group of veteran gamers recounting tales of past exploits, and the talk will inevitably lead to those "one in a million" game events that made a shambles of the best laid plans and proved the turning point in a battle that was heading the other way. Not every game should produce a Hero that miraculously saves the day or experience a turn of the tide because of an "act of God", but we will be more entertained if the chances of these things happening are higher in our gaming than they are in the real world. The tension created by this uncertainty - the "friction" of warfare - is a critical element of a solo wargame because it serves to balance the predictability of solo play and replaces the uncertainty brought to the table by a live opponent. For several years I have used Piquet (www.piquet.com) for solo gaming because it provides much of the uncertainty ("fog of war") and the opportunity for surprises that I believe are key ingredients in an enjoyable solo wargame. As a bonus, the Piquet system is compatible with a wide range of historic periods, providing you own the module that covers the period of interest. For those of you not familiar with the Piquet concept, this system uses cards which are randomly arranged in a Sequence Deck rather than a fixed sequence of play, for determining the options available to each side. The composition of the Sequence deck is customized for each side and consists of a specific number of "action" cards such as armor and infantry movement, target acquisition or reload, air support, artillery barrages, and even "wild cards" that can be used for any action. Sequence Decks also contain a number of "no action" cards which represent a weakness in the command, control, or communication. Both "action" and "no action" cards are assigned based upon the qualities each force historically would exhibit in a particular scenario's setting and period. The number of cards that a player can draw during any one turn, and the number of units against which those cards can be applied, is controlled by an Impetus Points system in which points are awarded and expended by each player using a somewhat complex accounting system. The randomization of the order of fire, movement, barrages, etc. in Piquet limits the choices available and increases uncertainty, thus creating a more interesting solo gaming experience. For solo play, my personal preference is to use "house" rules to simplify the Impetus Points accounting system into a simple 1D10 contest - the winning side may draw a number of cards equal to the difference. I then allow any eligible unit to reload, move, or take whatever action a drawn card describes without keeping track of Impetus points. This simplified system speeds play while still maintaining a good balance of uncertainty and control. Piquet is not the only rules system to use cards to randomize the sequence of play - I Ain't Been Shot, Mum! By TooFatLardies (www.toofatlardies.com) is an interesting example of another. The ambitious gamer could create a similar system and adapt it to his favorite rules. By combining the use of Grant's book to guide the placement, objectives, and reactions of the opposing forces, and the Piquet rules and the "fog of war" they simulate to execute the scenario, my goal is to create an enjoyable solo experience that avoids the usual pitfalls of solo wargaming. After Action Report: Mortain France 1944 Back to MWAN # 130 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com