Wargame Design: Solo-Wargaming Scenarios

Since the COVID-19 crisis is still ongoing as of this writing, it makes some sense to me to keep writing about Solo-warming.  So far in the series we have talked about gaming the opponent and deployment.  Today, we are going to talk a bit about the value of scenarios in solo-wargaming and how to make them work.  This is not the first time I have talked about scenarios, so you may also want to reference how to use them as a tool for balance, and how to go about designing a historical scenario. 

The key factor when trying to design a solo wargame is to create surprise for the player!  Typically, in a wargame surprise is created bu playing against another person with their own thoughts and ideas about how to achieve their objectives.  Obviously, in a solo-environment that type of surprise is not possible.  Therefore, the system itself needs to generate the surprise a game needs to be interesting for the solo player.

Scenarios are an excellent way to help add flavor and decision making to your solo wargames.  As the player, you need to balance completing the scenario objectives with killing off all your enemies.  Ideally, you will have to choose between (at minimum) three choices; killing enemies, protect your own forces, or achieve the objective.  These three points should be counter to each other.

Mission Matters
Let's consider the humble Space Hulk game.  There are a variety of missions, of forcing you to move between unknown points of the board while enemy gribblies close in on you from all sides.  This game demonstrates the decision making process for a solo-scenario very well.

1. There is very little chance you can kill all the enemies, since they consistently re-spawn.  Therefore, you need to focus on killing the ones that are a threat to you accomplishing your mission. 
2. There is little chance that all of your forces will survive.  Therefore, you have to decide when and where to sacrifice them for the most benefit.

3. The mission often forces you to go to X location and then Y location so you need to think through the best way to get from A to B with the least amount of distance, chance of encounter, etc. to get there.

You are always balancing the three main choice criteria during a game of Space Hulk.  You should either be killing enemies, protecting your forces, or accomplishing the mission.  There is a constant decision to be made from turn to turn, and decision making leads to fun and replayability.

As you can see, the scenario is the third pillar of the stool.  If there was no mission to accomplish in Space Hulk, you would just castle up in the easiest to defend room and kill genestealers until time ran out.  You can see the value of the mission to force movement and decision making.  However, the mission alone does not drive game play, as it is also impacted by factors such as enemy deployment style and how the enemies act.  Therefore, it is a challenge to think of scenario separate from the overall mechanics of the game.  They must be integrated together.

Anatomy of a Scenario
Here are some key things a scenario must do in a solo-wargame:

1. Force movement
A good scenario in a Solo-wargame must force movement from the solo-wargamer.  The natural tendency will be to castle up and let the enemy come to you.  The scenario will force a player to move, and therefore think about how they are moving and supporting their troops.

2. Time Restriction
Again, the idea here is to add tension to create "race against the clock" situation where you not only have to defeat the enemies, but also time itself.  This will help mitigate castling up, but also forces players to decide if they should detour to destroy a deployment zone or simply bypass it and hope they do not regret it later.  Decisions are the key, and adding time urgency forces decisions.

3. Provides an alternate win condition
Survival is a fine win condition, but that leads to cautious game play.  Alternate win conditions beyond survival is an effective way to force players to decide how much of a sacrifice is the right amount of sacrifice in order to accomplish the mission.

4. Complications
These are elements that make the mission more challenging as play progresses.  This could be as simple as where as enemies deploy, to special rules about terrain, or how players can interact with civilians.  These are little bits of Chrome or game hooks that add flavor but also friction for players to overcome.  They add replayability to the scenario as it won't always be the same mission even though the high level goals maybe the same.

There are a number of way to add complication to a scenario, they may be stated at the beginning of the mission, triggered by certain events, triggered by timing, or triggered by the players themselves.  No matter what type of complication is used, the goal is to add surprise, decision making, and replay factors to a solo-game.

5. Guidelines
Finally, a good scenario helps a player understand what is needed to be successful.  They offer broad guidelines for the player on what is needed to "win" the mission.  Get X number of troopers to Point Y in Z turns.  Now the player has some guidelines on what to do.

6. Opponents
Good scenarios also set-up good opponents.  How they deploy and act is a critical feature of making a strong scenario.  Too many opponents all attacking the same way may be overwhelming, while trickling opponents onto the field may not be challenging enough.  A good scenario creates a balance of enemies to objectives to make the scenario challenging but not impossible.

Conclusion
Scenarios are critical to a successful solo-wargaming experience.  They are necessary to create the proper conditions for game play.  A good scenario will force key decisions to be made, create added play value, and force the player themselves (You) into thinking about how to best balance the needs of the mission, survival of your force, and killing enemies!  Without a good mission, solo-play becomes stale and unrewarding very quickly.         

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page for more fun: https://m.facebook.com/pg/BloodandSpectacles/posts/?ref=bookmarks&mt_nav=0

Or our website:

http://www.bloodandspectacles.com/

Or our Messageboard:

http://bloodandspectacles.proboards.com/

Or our Wargames Vault Page:

https://www.wargamevault.com/browse.php?keywords=blood+and+spectacles&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=

   

Men of Bronze: Pre-Reform Macedonia

Men of Bronze focuses on Greek Warfare in the ancient world, and ends with Philip II of Macedon's victory at the battle of Charonae. In some reviews, I was properly criticized for not looking beyond the traditional, classical battlefields into the edges of the Greek world. Nicat the Irregular Warfare blog was right to point out this mistake, as I missed such important areas as Sicily, Thessaly, and Macedonia. I cover Macedonia in the book, but only after Philip's reforms. Therefore, I am trying to fill in the gaps here on my blog. I started with Thessaly and am now moving on to Macedonia.

Prior to Philip, Macedonia was considered a backwater place at the edge of the Greek world. However, they did participate in the Olympic Games and the ancestry of their kingdom was traced back to Thebes, and therefore Heracles and even Zeus himself. They were considered semi-barbarous. During the Greco-Persian wars, the Macedonians had sided with the Persians. They even had foot soldiers in the Persian army at the battle of Platea. Therefore, the rest of the Greek world did not take them seriously and consequently little is written about them by the typical sources. However, with the arrival of Philip II and then Alexander on the scene, the Macedonians exploded onto the world stage!

A Brief History

Not much is documented about the military history of Macedonia for this time period. Our sources are rather limited and I don't believe any of them are contemporary. The interest in this period was more of an after effect of Alexander's success. Therefore, putting together the details of this army can be sketchy at best.

Central Macedonian was good land for raising livestock, much like its neighbor Thessaly. This region was dominated by a landed aristocracy. However, there was also a mountainous highlands region farmed by peasants. Their traditional enemies were the nearby Thracians, Illyrians, and Paeonians.

They had a checkered history with their neighboring Greeks. During the Greco-Persian Wars the Macedonians were allied to the Persians. Later, during the Peloponnesian Wars they changed sides between the Spartans and the Athenians regularly. Parts of Macedon itself were traded between the two powers. Afterwards, the Macedonians were focused on internal politics and local matters between them, the Thracians, Illyrians, and the neighboring Thessaly.

The Macedonian military at the time was very different. It was composed of a couple of primary elements. The first component was the hetairoi, or the famous Companion Cavalry. They were composed of heavy cavalry with muscled cuirass. The horseman were composed of the nobles of the land.

Next, were the Pezhetairoi of the Foot Companions. These were the backbone of the infantry for the Macedonian army. However, they were relatively few in number compared to the majority of the infantry. There is some debate about how these early foot companions were armed. It is unclear if they were early pikeman, traditional hoplites, or something more like Iphikrates' hoplites. There is some reason for me to favor the Iphikrate's style as during the Peloponnesian Wars the Macedonians were exposed to this style of fighting.

The third and final component of the early Macedonian army was the citizen militia. These were conscripted farmers and peasants from the Macedonian Highlands. These were poorly armed and equipped troops with little or no training. Indeed, in campaigns in Thrace the Macedonian kings were reluctant to use the Militia at all. They were frequently replaced by local mercenaries in the Macedonian army.

The Pre-reform Macedonian Army

The primary fighting arm of the early Macedonian army circulated around the mobility of their cavalry forces. The Macedonian nobility used heavy armored cuirass to protect themselves in battle, and some sort of thrusting spear. However, at this point in time, the Heavy Cavalry did not make use of the famous wedge formation. This seems to have been one of Philip's innovations. However, even now they were the primary arm of decision in the battle. The rest of the army were there to support the cavalry.

The Foot Companions were the primary fighting arm of the infantry. They would provide a steady center for the rest of the force. The Cavalry could sally out from around these troops. Then, after a successful or failed charge they could return behind this bulwark and re-group for a second charge. In addition, they could be counted on to hold on in a fight against Illyrian or Thracian light troops.

The militia would bulk out the armies numbers. They could hold a position if needed or force an enemy army to spread out across a wider front. This would provide weak points for a cavalry charge to exploit.

Pre-Reform Macedonian Line of Battle

Use the following lists to build your historical forces for Thessaly. The Lines of Battle help to choose the appropriate units for your historical forces. These are sample lists and there to provide a flavor of potential forces. Players can always modify these lists as they see fit

Each Line of Battle will have an entry with a number. The number indicates the limit of that Unit you can take in the army. If an entry says 1+ your army must have at least one of these units in it. If it is 0+ any number of that unit may be taken. If a Unit is not on the list, it can not be chosen

Pre-Reform Macedonian Army

1-2 Heavy Cavalry

0-3 Light Hoplites

0+ Warband Infantry

0-2 Psiloi

0-2 Drilled Infantry (Mercenaries)

0-2 Peltasts (Mercenaries)

Sample Armies

Below you can see Sample Armies built from the Lines of Battle provided. They give you an idea of what your force could look like. They are all built to a 38 point force. They range from 5 to 10 Units each.

1 Heavy Cavalry

1 Light Hoplite

2 Warband Infantry

2 Mercenary Peltasts

Battle of Therma

Just prior to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, Macedonia was fragmented between two rival kings, Philip and Perdiccas. The pretender Philip was allied with the Athenians. In response, Perdiccas stirred up revolt and rebellion in the Athenian tribute city of Potidaea.

This displeased the Athenians and they sent Hoplites and ships to attack. They took over the city of Therma. Then, they marched on Pydna to try and besiege it. However, they decided to leave the area on the news that Corinth was moving on Potidaea. The Athenians promptly made peace with Perdiccas and decided to align with him going forward. This allowed Perdicccas to regain control of Macedonia.

We know nothing about how the Athenians took control of Therma. All we know is that a force of 1,000 Hoplites were sent via 20 ships to attack the city. We know nothing about the Macedonian defenders or if a battle even occurred. Therefore, the scenario listed below will need to take considerable liberties and assume that a defense was even raised at all.

Forces

We know very little about the forces involved at Therma so this list will be taking some liberties.

Athenians

1 Drilled Hoplites

2 Militia Hoplites

3 Peltasts

Macedonians

1 Heavy Cavalry- Companions and Nobles

1 Light Hoplites- Foot Companions

3 Warband Infantry- Citizen Levy

1 Psiloi- Citizen Levy

1 Mercenary Peltast

This scenario uses the a scenario from the Men of Bronze rulebook as the basis for the battle. Since we know the battle around Therma was probably a siege, it makes sense to use the Ravage the Countryside scenario with the Athenians as the attackers and the Macedonians as the defenders.

Set-up

This scenario is played on a 48 by 48 Base width board. Follow the deployment rules found in the Men of Bronze rulebook for the scenario. However, since Therma is a Macedonian city to start with, we will let the Macedonian player deploy all the terrain. However, instead of the normal 4 pieces of terrain with one in each 12 base width by 12 basewidth grid; only deploy one piece in each grid space on the Athenian side of the board. Place the terrain to be ravaged as normal.

Special Rules

You can choose to play this scenario with no complications, roll for them as normal, or choose them as you and your opponent wish. This scenario does not use any special complications.

Victory

Use the normal victory conditions for Ravage the Countryside found in the Men of Bronze rule book.

Conclusion

Now we can add another Northern territory of Greece into your Greek combat with Men of Bronze. This list along with the list for Thessaly on the blog will help round out your period options. I also have a blog post coming up soon about Sicily, Syracuse,a nd Carthage; so keep your eyes open. This period had a few more secondary sources thanks to the Macedonian campaigns with/against the Persians, during the Peloponnesian War, and in campaigns against the Thracians. However, these sources were not all aligned about the pre-reform structure of the Macedonian military and the Foot Companions especially required some judgment on my part to fit the troops types available.

A shout out to Nic at the Irregular Warfare Blog and Ingtaer on Dakka Dakka for their help and information. Thank you for all the support and help.

You can get all of the updated materials including a FAQ, Campaign rules, and Lines-of-Battle in the Men of Bronze Supplement: Hercules Abroad.

I look forward to seeing your games with these lists. Feel free to share them with me in the comments, on the message board, or send me an Email through my website.

Review: Land of the Free- Osprey Games

As long time readers of the blog know, I have been interested in someday doing a series of games for the War of 1812 focused in Wisconsin or other parts of the frontier for the period.  The Battle of Prairie Du Chien has been of particular interest to me as well as various “fictional” encounters in the wilderness.  To this end I have purchased a few rulesets such as Rebels andPatriots, Chosen Men, and The Men Who Would Be Kings; all from the Osprey Wargaming Series. 

To help facilitate this project and my desire to buy, own, and read far more rulesets than I can actually play with; I decided to pick up Land of the Free by Joe Krone.  This one is a hard back from Osprey Games and was one of their early hardback games. 

This one took me a long time to get through and I read it in starts and stops.  Therefore, I apologize ahead of time if my review gets a bit disjointed.  Despite the starts and stops in the rules reading, I think I have a good grasp on the games basic concepts. 

Things I Liked

Over half of this book is scenarios to play in various wars from the period.  These cover scenarios in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the French-Indian War, and more.  For a player new to the period, it provide plenty of historical scenarios of various sizes and scopes.  Mr. Krone took this part very seriously as he includes board lay-outs, army lists, synopsis of the battle, and all the great details you need to re-fight the game itself.  With many games focusing more on competitive, organized play it was nice to see something with a strong scenario bend to it.  The books is worth it just for the scenarios alone. 

On a related note, there are also nicely done army lists and orders of battle to help newbies like me get a handle on the period.  This will not be needed for veterans of the period, but helped me out as a newbie to it. 

The game was also base and scale agnostic.  You could just as easily play a game with a handful of 25-60 28mm figures, as you could with bases of 6mm, 10mm, or 15mm figures.  Indeed, the game uses generic unit “sizes” to help a player understand the capabilities of a unit.  These range from Tiny to Large units which allows for a wide variety of unit and troop types to be represented.  In addition, this game does not use figure removal and instead has hits that degrade a units ability to pass morale tests. 

Scout elements allow your officers to access more Command Points.  Frequently, these types of units are ignored or have little additional value to a game.  However, additional Command Points allow you to give more orders to the rest of your troops.  This allows you to essentially, act on your improved intelligence gathering capabilities. 

Each unit has a number of action dice.  The more dice, the more success they can get.  Frequently, the number of Action Dice a unit has is related to their size or skill.  The more dice you roll, the more potential hits you can generate in melee or shooting.  You are trying to hit a target number defined by the type of unit you are using such as Grenadiers, Line infantry, skirmishers, etc.  This is a simple and elegant way to resolve key actions, and allow some differentiation between units. 

Things I Do Not Like

Like all linear warfare games, there is a bit of “IfThis/Then That” to the rules as how artillery interacts with infantry interacts with cavalry leads to some strange situations.  For the most part, modifiers are sufficient to handle these situations.  In addition, Interpenetration rules exist because it was a thing on the actual linear battlefield.  However, most of these are more down to the period rather than the rules themselves. 

Units that are routed stay on the board and withdraw until they leave the board.  Therefore, a player must spend time dealing with a unit that is no longer viable instead of just removing it from the field as an abstraction for routing.  I am not a fan of this approach.   

This game essentially uses the I-GO-U-GO method.  This is notinherently bad, but I do not think it helps the immersion for the players.  I can forsee long periods where the inactive player basically watches the active player move troops and roll dice.  The game would benefit from some sort of method to exchange the initiative.   

Meh and Other Uncertainties

The game uses individual based officers which then generate a command radius.  This is a pretty common and straight forward approach to the period.  However, I am not convinced this is the best way to model some of the limitations of command, control, and the leadership challenge on the table. 

In addition, each officer has Command Points that they expend to have units act.  Once gone, they can not give more orders.  This acts as a resource limitation.  Therefore, an officer has two limitations on getting troops to act, the first is distance and the second is the number of Command Points.  I like the resource management this implies BUT I like the idea that a unit can always defend itself with fire or melee based on the local officers acting in their unit’s own best interests similar to The Men Who Would Be Kings.  In practice, this means units always being able to perform some actions based on training.   However, my impression is that such freedom of action was/could often be curtailed by discipline in Linear Warfare.  I am waffling here but only to sketch out some of the challenges a game designer must face and then make decisions about.

Unlike other Osprey Games hardback books, this one does not have a lot of white space.  In fact, every page is full of text.  For an old guy like me, some of the text was even a bit too small!  However, it still had great images of armies, color plates, and solid maps.  I imagine it was not cheap for Osprey to put it together and it looks great!   

Conclusion
This is a very tidy and serviceable set of rules.  It’s main strength is that allows new players easy access to the period.  It has a great selection of Historical re-fights and scenarios of various scales.  It also provides a good basis for army lists.  Finally, the game scales really well from small skirmishes with a handful of figures up to large battles.  Gamers can therefore scale their games along with their armies.  This will be important for a player like me.  In my mind, it is the games strongest selling point.    

On the other hand, the rules are rather “by the numbers”.  There is not a strong hook that really differentiates these rules from a game like Honours of War or Blackpowder.  The mechanics align pretty closely to these systems, and other Linear warfare systems I have read elsewhere.  It is unclear to me why I would use these rules over the more ubiquitous Blackpowder system?  In a sense, the game plays it a bit too safe and conservatively with its mechanics.  If you are going to tackle Linear warfare you really needs some strong hook to make your rules stand out in a crowded field.  Spit-balling, I feel it could benefit from some sort of Fog-of-War deck, a different activation mechanic, or something a bit different with the Command and Control features of the game.  I am afraid Land of the Free just does not have the hook it needs to make this a must play game.