I was seriously contemplating calling this article "Solo Wargaming for Groups" but I discarded that idea as perhaps being a bit confusing. But hold onto that thought. The genesis of this issue's topic was an article by Jerry Lannigan in MWAN #82 titled "When We Remembered to Laugh." Jerry made several fine points but the one that struck me was the ambivalent nature of competition.

Competition can be an exhilarating experience but it can also be unsatisfying. Jerry described situations in which "friendly competition" at the local wargarning club was anything but. Wargaming stopped being fun when some players (and it takes only one) lose control of their competitive natures. Winning becomes obsessive. The goal is to win rather than to have a good time. The trouble is, if there is a winner, then there is also a loser and that can be hard to take, especially if the winner is no gentleman.

When I examine why I much prefer to wargame solo even though there are any number of opportunities to game with a group, one of my justifications has been the handful of incidents I experienced when someone in the group was more interested in proving that he was the best commander at the table and didn't care what kind of unseemly and boorish conduct accompanied that goal. And there were always those cases when I would try something new and if it failed, would suffer any number of comments about the intelligence of someone who would try something obviously flawed from the start.

As thick-skinned as I try to be, those experiences weren't fun and I found myself avoiding group gaming opportunities in favor of doing my own thing at my own speed and to my own standards. But this article is not an attempt to convert group gainers; it is a proposal for group gamers to try something different while still gaining from the positive aspects of competition.

The Idea

And here it is. Imagine if you will, a wargame in which all the gamers are on the same side. Their common foe is "automated" using solo wargaming techniques. Perhaps the enemy activity could be generated by another player acting as gamemaster, not as the enemy commander. Solo wargaming techniques are pretty well advanced so that you do not need a gamemaster but having one speeds up the game play. Gamers do not compete against one another; they are very clearly on the same team competing against a common foe. They have opportunities to assist each other and are expected to. Would this set up not build cornraderie? If you win; you all win. If you lose, you lose together. Okay, now for some sample scenarios.

In my first column, I illustrated a game in which multiple columns of US infantry were clearing sections of the Siegfried Line. It would be fairly easy for one player to be the battalion commander (and perhaps command the reserve company or an attacking column of his own) while two other players commanded companies.

The German side was automated with bunkers and patrols appeared nearly at random and would hold up the American advance if not dealt with expeditiously. Commanders communicated by radio so open discussion is acceptable. The battalion commander can influence the battle by maneuvering his companies to assist the main attack, reinforcing with the reserve as necessary, or by adjusting the priority of field artillefty fires.

The second article in this column addressed forest fighting in 18th and 19th century North America. Have each player command a different part of the column as it moves through the forest. Perhaps one player acting as brigade commander controls the main body while another commands the advance and rear guards and a third commands the flank guards. Using various solo wargaming techniques, the enemy appears at various places and at various strengths. Without radios, communication between players is an interesting problem to solve. Consider requiring all messages to be written and sent by runner unless the commanders' figures are in physical proximity.

If your wargaming group is interested in either of the above scenarios, assign one player as gamemaster. He can assemble and master the rules for terrain and enemy generation. If he reads Lone Warrior, there will be no lack of refined rules. He can further develop the scenario by issuing an order to the ranking commander and describing victory conditions.

For example, in the Siegfried line scenario, he can issue a brigade order to the battalion commander. Victory might be defined as clearing a zone of all enemy activity. The battalion commander then task organizes his battalion and issues orders to his subordinate company commanders. In the second scenario, the gamemaster can give the brigade commander his mission (e.g. relieve Fort Ligonier) and he can generate the route to be taken through the forest. The brigade commander organizes his force into its components, issues his orders for the march, and perhaps directs some drills to be used in the event of ambush. Then let the games begin.

The players roll for terrain and for enemy activity under the supervision of the gamemaster who ensures the proper tables are used and that the enemy is arrayed in a sensible manner. An interesting twist is to hold up snacks and beverages until the game is over and then the entire team can celebrate exultant victory or perhaps dire yet glorious defeat.

Other Scenarios

The above scenarios are easy because the concepts and rules are demonstrated in previous articles. Here are a few more scenarios that strike me as being suitable for group solo gaming.

The Alamo. A pet project of mine is to refine a rough set of solo wargaming rules for the Alamo. [Readers, watch Lone Warrior for this upcoming article.] What I would propose is that the wargamers command different units of Alamo defenders. Perhaps one player is Colonel Travis who assigns tasks to these subordinates and perhaps generates a couple "what if" plans in case the outer walls can not be held. It is a fairly simple task, I believe, to automate the attacking Mexican columns.

I am working on some tables to generate the number of attacking columns, their composition, the section of the wall they are aiming for, and morale and training levels. Other rules will cover how much damage will force an attacking column to fail to close on the wall and then how to react (fall back, veer left or right, open fire, rally and try again etc.) Rules will cover the preliminary Mexican cannonade (inflicting Texan casualties and weakening or breaching portions of the wall).

I am also thinking on ways to time the Mexican attack to answer questions such as "At what range do the Texans detect the assaults" and "Do all Mexican columns depart the start line at the same time?" Solo techniques can generate a wide variety of Mexican attacks with greater or lesser chances for success. The Texans want to throw back some columns so that defenders can reinforce sections of the wall where the Mexicans have managed to throw up ladders and are coming across.

This scenario has a lot to offer and can be reversed. Yes indeed, have each player command an assaulting column or two while automating the Texan defenders. Make rules so that if the Texans stop all column heading for a specific wall, they can send some percentage of defenders to reinforce the nearest wall that is still threatened. Play both sides in a single afternoon and then go out to the local Tex-Mex restaurant to celebrate. This has got to be more fun than some winners and some losers and a lot of animosity.

Omaha Beach. I recall quite vividly back in 1964 commemorating the anniversary of the D-Day landings with hundreds of Airfix figures. I made dozens of simple landing craft and bunkers. For the most part, the Germans were static defenders but I had two or three local counterattacks planned in which a company of German infantry, led by two assault vehicles, came down off of the high ground and onto the beach in an attempt to push the Big Red One back into the Channel. Slaughter and valor on the beaches. Great fun! How can we make this a group game?

One player can be the regimental commander while the rest play battalion commanders. The regimental commander can control the reserve and perhaps the indirect fire support from naval vessel and ground support aircraft. The regimental commander assigns beaches and objectives while the battalion commanders load the landing craft (what goes in which vessel) and devise their landing plan (which craft in which waves).

The gamemaster builds chance tables so that landing craft hit the beach at times and places other than according to plan. A random events chart is consulted to show which landing craft never make it to the beach for a number of reasons such as capsizing, striking underwater obstacle, or gunfire from the defenders.

The gamemaster lays down those bunkers, trenches, and other defensive positions which would be known by the attackers from reconnaissance. He keeps a list of what troops and weapons are in each one and sets them out when the Americans come within range. He also has a surprise table with an assortment of defensive positions which appear as if by magic as he Americans hit the beach.

Once on the beach, the regimental mission is to clear all defenders from a given zone (with left and right limits and with depth). The gamemaster builds a table which generates German counterattack forces: their composition and timing and orientation of their attack. The players have to fight inland with what they have and yet be postured to withstand a local counterattack that can strike at any time. Because the landing craft arrived differently than planned, the battalions and their companies may be out of supporting range. The regimental commander tries to influence the fight by controlling the priority of fires, issuing orders, and committing the reserve. What a mess! This amphibious assault scenario can be tailored for the Pacific Theater, Sicily, or Gallipoli.

Battalion Carre. I have been toying with some way to conduct a large scale Napoleonic meeting engagement in a solo mode and have had only partial success. When I figure it out, it will appear as an article. For now, let me provide a concept and maybe some club out there will try it as a group game.

The problem is to simulate a Napoleonic army moving across the landscape in battalion carre Connation, bumping into the enemy, and setting up and fighting a decisive engagement. Two moving forces is one of the hardest scenarios to model for solo play. As I understand it, conceptually the French forces might be arrayed something like this.

If everything goes well, the cavalry screen will make contact with the enemy light cavalry outpost line and the two forces will fight it out. Some cavalry (perhaps from both sides) will "leak" through and gather hard information on the main forces behind. The French force will begin orienting on the enemy, perhaps trying to find an isolated corps that can be defeated in detail. Very likely, the enemy is moving toward the French also.

At some point, one of the French infantry corps will make contact with a large enemy force (hopefully not the bulk of the enemy). The French corps that makes this first hard contact (and it will not always be the corps leading the formation) will engage the enemy for the purpose of fixing him. That French corps sends back a report to the French army commander who then orders the other corps to march onto the flanks of the fixed enemy force. Now it is a race to see if the French can arrive on the battlefield in strength before the enemy can. (Yes, for all you Napoleonic students, I understand that I have provided a simplified scenario which does not address the richness of Napoleonic forms of maneuver. Please bear with me as I struggle through this.)

How can we adapt this scenario for group solo play? Start by assigning different members to the command of the various French corps. Appoint one head guy to be the French army commander and he will also command the reserve division and the heavy cavalry. Since the opening fighting will be between light cavalry forces, perhaps each member can also command a brigade of the screening cavalry force. The gamemaster generates an enemy order of battle and rolls to see where each division is located.

Everything so far is done on a map. The gamemaster has both forces on his map. The French corps commanders each have a map but only French forces are visible. I use the old two sheets of acetate trick. The gamemaster creates an enemy acetate overlay (using water soluble pens) while the French commander arrays his forces on a second sheet. I found that document protectors are ideal as the map fits well inside. After each movement turn, the French commander provides the gamemaster with his acetate overlay.

The gamemaster puts one atop the other and both atop the map, and sees if there is any contact. If so, he either sets up the engagement to be fought out with figures or he resolves combat in some other manner and generates the report to the French army commander (and to any corps commander whose force the messenger would ride through on his way to the army commander). The gamemaster plays the enemy commander by rolling for some course of action among logical alternatives (concentrate forces and wait for the French to arrive; strike immediately with all forces while concentrating on the move; make contact with a small force and maneuver to envelop where you think the French main body will be etc.)

To simulate the command and control difficulties, the gamemaster can require that all correspondence between French players be conducted by written message and by exchanging overlays. Each commander posts his own map based on what information he receives. Needless to say, all players will not have the same understanding of the situation.

Turns continue until major contact is made (at least division on division). Then the gamemaster moves the fighting to the game table and marks the "battlefield" on the French commander's map. The map moves continue as before geared to a number of battlefield turns. Perhaps the map moves are conducted every three hours while the battlefield turns represent thirty minutes. The gamemaster does his best to recreate what the enemy would do given a limited understanding of French intentions and dispositions. In this he must be an honest agent; faithfully carrying out the plan he rolled for earlier.

Who fights the battle? The way I see it, the French commander of the unit in contact commands his own forces. However, another player commands the enemy and the rest of the players fight the subordinate French and enemy forces. Thus, everyone is actively engaged. This must be on the honor system; the enemy must be commanded to the best of the player's ability.

After the six battlefield turns have elapsed, the players assume their original positions as French Corps commanders to accomplish the map move for that turn. Since more forces may now be arriving on the battlefield, the gamemaster may have to reassign players to new commands for the next six battlefield turns - half controlling the French and half controlling the enemy. The gamemaster can himself command a brigade or he can act as referee to keep the game moving.

If all goes according to plan, eventually all the French forces will converge on the battlefield. Who commands the enemy? My thought is that the French commander who initially made contact becomes an enemy commander. His troops are probably depleted. He can be assisted by anyone else whose corps is reduced. The gamemaster can help them control the enemy army. Another method is to have the gamemaster roll for who commands what on the battlefield. Remember, for map moves command of the French corps never changes. However, temporary command of forces fighting it out on the game table can change. And these temporary conuTIands should rotate somehow so that no player is identified too closely with a specific enemy unit.

I have set out a lot for the gamemaster to do in battalion carre. Much of the success or failure to achieve a fun-filled afternoon depends on how well he can be even-handed, creative, and cooperative. The gamemaster must understand that his mission is not to thwart the French but to provide a satisfying experience for the players. He is not the enemy commander trying to win but a fellow wargamer in whose hands the rest of the players have entrusted their time and energy in exchange for a rousing good time.

Summary. The purpose of the methodologies presented above was to introduce readers to the potential of a new way of gaming. Using solo wargaming techniques, it is possible to design a game in which all players are on the same side. It will take some preliminary work for the players or at least the gamemaster to line up appropriate rules and to generate a fun scenario. I would be very pleased if some wargaming group would give this a try and see if it works in practice as well as it seems to in theory. Until next issue,

Good Soloing!