Solo wargaming - some thoughts

A departure for me as normally my posts are concerned with what I've done, though occasionally I may explain a little of how and why I've got to where I am. This post will try to concentrate on a specific topic - solo wargaming.

A couple of things have prompted this; my chat with David of the Ragged Soldier blog (https://russetcoatcpt.blogspot.com/) and a discussion on the Polemarch blog (https://ancientrules.blogspot.com/) about his recently published book:

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/David-Heading/a/5916

I'm not going to review the book or comment directly on it, as I think that's proper to his blog. Instead, I want to put down my thoughts on solo wargaming.

The above book is another in a list of titles looking at solo wargaming, from Donald Featherstone, Stuart Asquith and others. There is a society dedicated to this aspect (https://lonewarriorswa.com/). Most of these cover the topic in more detail than can be expected in a blog post, so I will concentrate on my thoughts.

During my chat with David, we touched on solo wargaming; David does a lot. I'm not currently gaming due to absence of anywhere to do it! The dining table is out of commission, the garage full of clutter and the best I'd manage is a card table for something like DBA. 

I briefly mentioned "mechanisms" and also explained that once I'd finished painting my SK armies, I wanted to start the campaign solo to get things ironed out before potentially inviting real people to participate .

I don't want to get involved in the "why" or debates on whether a real live opponent is preferable- most of this is personal choice - and wrapped up in issues around not what game you play but who you play it with. I'd argue under the right circumstances both can be equally pleasurable or conversely, disappointing.

Instead, it's the "how" you go about it I want to look at.

The most obvious drawback is that you control both armies, know what troops are available and can see both sides of the table. The first thing to decide is how much of the unknown you wish to introduce. It is perfectly possible to simply play both sides, planning deployment and plan of attack or defence; the problem is of course it's difficult to both be impartial and unbiased as well as able to forget what you have planned for the other side. It's also unlikely you will be surprised at any stage, something a real opponent will provide when they do the unexpected. Hidden units provide a real challenge.

Many gamers simply play both sides as fairly as they can; some rulesets lend themselves to this through the inbuilt friction. Commands and Colors for example relies on cards for movement and actions; you can either play as they are drawn or attempt to use the cards in the best way for both sides. Other types of rules introduce friction via phased movement or disruption such as BP's "blunder" rule. Some people hate such rules, others love them.

The alternative, is to either completely randomise both sides plans and deployment or to rely on some form of pre-programming, such as CS Grant's Programmed scenarios. Or, refight a historical battle drawing each side's deployment from the historical and then deciding whether either or both sides follow the historical aims and plan.

Whichever approach you take there are certain aspects you will need to consider and possibly devise mechanisms for. My view is they sit under the following headings:

Deployment

Touched on above; do you randomise or deploy sensibly? Cavalry facing a marsh is going to be a problem - do you then allow some reorganisation? Or have standard deployments decided by a dice. Do you have characteristics for you generals? Would an incompetent general deploy cavalry behind a marsh - stranger things have happened in history. How do you handle hidden troops or the problems of the 2000 foot general? The latter of course is not confined to solo gaming - the issue is reacting to things you would know nothing about - is it simply a question of honesty? Perhaps easier when playing solo.

Movement

Not just how far you move, but when or if at all. Most rules are either predictable or have a degree of randomisation. At one end of that spectrum, you know each move how far that unit can move and if you choose to move it, it will unless there are other factors such ad command radii and or morale. The other extreme is where what acts (and when or if) is determined by cards or dice, the ultimate being also the actual distance moved being also randomised. Many critics point out that you are simply reacting to circumstances from move to move, rather than following a plan and that skill is replaced by luck. For the solo player, it does allow some detachment, assuming you play each side equally. The less randomisation, the more cerebral the game, but that predictability will make for few surprises.

Command decisions

The most difficult issue in many ways. Unless as above, you as the player are simply reacting to events, it is very difficult if not impossible to split yourself in two and act fairly for both sides. Unconscious or conscious bias will play a part. Do you characterise your generals? How far do you go and how far down the chain of command do you go? Again the question revolves around how much randomisation are you introducing? Is the aim to remove control from your hands entirely and place it under that of the general's character? Is it "rash", "bold" and "cautious" or to the level of " timid, dithering dypsomaniac"? Some of this can be taken out of your hands by cards which determine which wing or unit can act, as above. Or do you attempt to put yourself in the persona of th general and role play to some extent? Or simply throw dice for different choices options? - 1 or 2 withdraw, 3+ counterattack?

End point

Unless you have rules that determine the end of a game (objectives, victory tokens) or a scenario that gives a result, then the decision on whether to continue playing come down to the player themselves. Some players become so demoralised or dislike the rules, they will quit even when there's a chance to win. Others will fight to the last man, unless prevented from doing so by victory conditions or similar. It's more difficult for the solo player as he is the general for both sides; it's simply not possible to psychologically influence yourself! Campaigns are interesting in that they add a different dimension to when to end a battle. Do you save the army or fight bitterly for that city? What losses can you sustain?

So where do I sit within all this? Well my Soldier King armies have generals with random characteristics down to brigade / column level. I've tried to translate the major characteristics into a set of values from 2 to 8 which give some sort of score against which to role. I have not cracked random deployment or how to have each side deploy independently as well as take account of terrain, let alone hidden units and deployment. I'd love to introduce random movement, somehow influenced by character or the army 's training, but fear it would slow things down excessively.

What it boils down to are mechanisms you can bolt onto existing rules or exploit the mechanisms in existing rules that remove control from the player. So far, the books I've seen give some hints or suggestions, but often little by way of actual mechanics that can be adapted.