Perhaps it's more than slightly contrary of me that, while I spend most of my gaming hours in solitaire play, I dislike solitaire games. I prefer to retain control over both sides in a contest, as schizophrenic as that may be at times.

I suspect that I'm not alone in this preference, given the seeming disparity in the amount of solitaire play vs. actual solitaire games available. Not all of the solo demand for two player products can be attributed to the difficulty of designing a truly successful and elegant solitaire system, as hard as that is. Some solitaire oriented games have been notable successes, but twoplayer games predominate.

About the only thing that will closeline the true solitaire veteran is some form of one of wargaming's most enduring grails-Limited Intelligence. Be it plotting, si-move, hidden units or dummy counters, limited intelligence can quickly shelve a game for the lone-wolf player. Try as you might, you can't forget what your opponent (the other you) has just done last turn to stymie (the new) you. Fixes such as random dice rolls, etc. are usually more awkward than they are successful.

The best (worst?) example of this, by far, is plotted movement. Plotting tends to be the worst of all--laborious to execute, and completely useless for the solitaire player. After all, the point is that you don't know what the other guy is going to do until after you've committed your own forces to specific activities. Short of a completely split personality, there's no way you'll not know what the other side is doing.

And this may be the single most persistent complaint laid at our own door--that the games of both the Civil War Brigade and the Tactical Combat Series cannot be played solitaire because of our use of written command systems. Reviewers especially take note of this, confusing our command rules with traditional plotting.

Each time one such comment comes our way, Dean glares at me and grumbles. The fact is that solitary play for both the CWB and TCS is enhanced, not hamstrung, by their command and control rules. Once gamers actually try it out, rather than just assuming that the system can't succeed Solo , they will find this to be true. We have heard from a number of converts who now see our point of view.

The Solitaire Philosophy

Gamers who play both sides when they play alone (as opposed to solitaire gamers who are simply recreating an historical action or honing their skills and tricks for later FTF play) are seeking to recreate some form of duality. Planning is vinually impossible because just as soon as the plan is conceived, it is known to the enemy and appropriate counter-measures are enacted.

In essence, the heart of solo play is "live for the moment." If you made a mistake last turn, once you switch sides you've got to exploit that mistake immediately, since it's going to be corrected ASAP. In fact, the traditional flaw of games--the ability to react to enemy action immediatelyis exacerbated here. I have found myself, on occasion, going through the entire action-reaction process within the course of a single player phase. While moving side A, I see an opportunity for side B, identify the "B" forces needed to exploit the chance, and alter my move to correct the flaw in "A's" positioning.

While maintaining long range goals (i.e. capture Moscow in an cast-front game), those sneaky plans that we all love to spring on our enemy are beyond our grasp. Computer games, of course, hold the potential to one day give us that kind of two-player definition when playing all alone, but at the moment I have found none that I care for and still prefer boardgames. The computer revolution still has a way to go before it successfully recreates my own Personal gaming experience on a screen instead of a board.

TCS & CWB

Given the above, how can the TCS & CWB be used to heighten rather than detract from, the solitaire experience? Because these systems rely on predicting the future rather than forgetting the past. To borrow a phrase Dean coined awhile back, they are "limited foretell" systems.

Both command systems accept the fact that the players know what's happening on the map, and make little effort to conceal current status, actions, etc. In effect, there is little limited intelligence of the traditional kind, with only some effort made to conceal things like unit status and losses from the enemy player. You can see your opponent's moves, you know of his attacks, and in general arc aware of what's happening at the moment.

But you can't predict the future, and that is precisely what these command systems force you to do The result is limited foretell. By introducing a delay and acceptance procedure into the loop before you can physically act on your plan, the system assumes that enough elements won't go as planned so that some disruption is introduced. If you make changes to your plans, these modifications will in turn experience delays before being ready to carry out, thus, there is an ever-widening time lag between idea and execution, allowing for increasing command and control problems.

In a solitaire situation, this means that even though you might indeed see problem there may be nothing you can do to fix it for several turns. Given the uncertainty of when exactly any given command will accept it's orders, the game generates a great degree of limited control without hidden movement, plotting, or any of the conventions that routinely prohibit the solitaire gamer from enjoying such a game.

The Mechanics

More needs to be said about the command systems themselves, and why they differ from traditional written movement. This is not plotting, and contains none of the tedium that can involve.

The CWB asks you to write your orders to the Corps level, imposing larger control without micro-managing each unit. Governed by traditional corps and divisional radii rules, the units (brigades) maneuver, attack, fire, etc. freely, without any need to plot specifics. Corps actions are controlled in the broader context by issuing orders. For instance, a corps might be ordered to move via road X to attack and capture a specific hill, road junction, or some other distinctive feature. The order is usually no more than a sentence or two long, and only rarely will the need to resort to specific hex numbers ever arise. Once issued, a given order will take time to be accepted (based on a variable die roll) and then may stand the command in question in good stead for several turns, a full day, or even all game on occasion. Most games have 2-7 Corps per side, resulting in only a Limited amount of orders writing. In my play, I have found that I write on average about one order every other turn. It should rarely take more than a couple of minutes to actually record the thing, though sometimes deciding exactly what to do can be a series of agonizing choices.

In the TCS, the mechanic of choice is the Op Sheet. Now, not only need you write only enough words to describe the larger action clearly, but a black & white copy of the map is included to provide a visual aid. Instead of set corps, the Op Sheet can be drawn along a task organization concept, choosing the right forces for the job in question. Op sheets are drawn by mission (attack, hasty defense, prepared defense, etc.) and take a varying amount of time to implement based on the current activity, size, and mission of the forces designated. Again, the result is a great degree of uncertainty as to when a force will begin it's mission. Like the CWB, Op Sheets are only drawn up as needed, and may last an indefinite time, depending on the success of your predictive skills. Even Omaha, for all of its four maps and 1600 counters, has no more than 10 Op Sheets per side in play at any one time. Furthermore, Op Sheets are even easier to produce than CWB orders, because by drawing the plan, excessive verbiage is unnecessary.

Both systems employ larger command restrictions through orders without worrying about the smaller details of individual unit control. Solitaire play benefits as much as FTF, because it forces the garner to live by his previous plans. In fact, the more a solitaire gamer "lives by the moment," the sharper this dichotomy is drawn, because the more times new orders are issued, the greater the gap between on-map reality and command intent grows. A player who writes new orders to meet the circumstances of every turn win find troops breaking off successful attacks, rushing off to far comers of the map at the worst moments, and in general being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Differences

Of course, there are differences in the way solitaire and FTF players should handle the command concept. Opposing players need to use the system conservatively, wary of issuing too many orders lest they produce the effects described above. Players involved with five opponents need to avoid panic, and develop long range plans. Seizing the initiative, so that you are acting instead of reacting, is important.

The solitaire gamer, on the other hand, can use the same system to produce the uncertainty he needs. Avoid long range plans, (since the 'enemy' is going to find them out immediately anyway) and focus more on turn to turn reaction. This method will produce the reversals of fortune that keep solitaire gaming intriguing. Obviously, some broader planning concepts need to be maintained, but develop them no further than the 'principle objective , stage.

When starting a solitaire game, I suggest that you sit down and write out both sides' first turn orders while looking just at the map, prior to setting up. This will help interject uncertainty into the opening moves. Better yet is to get a friend to write out the initial orders for one of the sides in secret, to be revealed when play starts. This can set the stage properly right from the start. It is even possible to have the friend continually issue new orders for one side throughout the game. AH he really needs to know is the general situation and forces available. You can simply have him designate the next objectives, for instance, or progress to full-fledged orders writing, supplying him with detailed situation reports and asking for his next commands. Either method could be pursued by mail, and two gamers might play concurrent games, each supplying the other with one sides orders.

Far from interfering, I have found that the command system has increased my enjoyment of solitaire gaming. The more honest you are within the rules certainly aids this effect as well, though at least if you cheat and reroll that acceptance number until you get it right, no one cares. By the way, all of these games can be played without using the command restrictions at all, thereby turning them into games no more difficult to solitaire than the vast majority of games out there.

One additional benefit of an engaged command system is that you may find yourself more interested in the unfolding events than you might otherwise be. I always reach a point in my play where I have lost interest in the current game, usually before a clear decision is reached. I suspect that this has more to do with the fact that almost all of the games I do play alone are monsters, involving an investment of months of time and a considerable amount of my available gaming space. For instance, I routinely played TSS for years, until it had grown quite stale for me. By adding in the CWB command rules, I renewed my interest in a game I rarely played anymore, and found myself enjoying it all over again.

In any case, don't simply push aside a CWB or TCS game next time your in the mood to go it alone, simply because of the 'plotting' scare. The common refrain we hear about solo play is simply this: "I didn't think I could play them (CWB and TCS) alone, until one day I set one up and played a few turns." It can be done, and with little fuss, too.