Sunday 30 August 2020

Programmed Wargames Scenarios (2): Broken Ground (c)

The third part in the continuing battle, based on scenario 2 from Programmed Wargame Scenarios.

An advantage of playing a solo game is that you can change the rules halfway the game. So, after some discussion regarding unit-based vs commander-based activation, I decided to switch to commander-based activation. This allows for more units to be activated, but also gives Red (with more units and 4 commanders) a fairer chance of activating units proportional to its strength.

Moreover, I also decided that the +3 bonus commanders gave on top of their 7+ baseline score was a bit too generous, so I downgraded those to +2. See also here for a full analysis on our sister blog Wargaming Mechanics.

Back to the game!

The orders didn't change, although I decided the feint attack on Red's left flank had run long enough and it was time for Red to push forwards in the centre. I also decided Red's right flank should move forward a bit to protect Red's centre flank.

Red's centre is pushing forward. The artillery is also (re)deployed such that Red's left flank can be attacked and the attacking force is protected.

The cavalry on Red's right flank is moving forward to protect the right side of the centre force, although it is not participating in the attack itself - as per the programmed orders.

Red's left flank (the flank of the feint attack) is happy to stay where they are and fire at Blue's forces. However, since the woods need to be cleared (also a programmed order), I gave a charge order o the cavalry, but their morale check failed, saying "Unit refuses charge order ...".
 

As for Blue, they were happy to return fire as much as possible. On Blue's left flank I decided their would be some movement in response to Red's cavalry moving up, and on Blue's right units were simply protecting their position. In a player-vs-player game there would probably be some clever manoeuvring back-and-forth, but I guess overall that wouldn't make much of a difference.

The view from Blue's centre. Red's infantry is moving up, and the following turns probably will be a massive firefight.

Blue's left flank, moving in response to Red's cavalry. The flank forces (light and cav) could move boldly to face any enemy troops, so that's what they're doing.

Blue's right flank. Some units had to retreat 1 or 2 hexes due to morale, so they mved back into position. As long as they can keep the Red units at a distance, they are happy.

Since the Red attack against Blue's strong centre was now fully developing, I decided it was time to roll on the response table for Blue. The result is "Negative", meaning "no change of plans, no initiative, ...". Red will only have to take a response when Blue's units will actually retreat from one of the hill features (which can happen if Blue will fail some morale tests in my rules).

2 comments:

  1. I do like the way that the book introduces these decision paths to the scenario. The one that I think is hardest to implement is the ‘rash’ option and imagine that each of us might approach that in a different way, as it is hard for wargamers to do something that is not at least ‘considered’. Perhaps a die roll against a list of actions (with at least one being ill-advised) might be the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, although the book is called "Programmed Scenarios" as a solo player you still have to translate the orders and responses to the table and to the specific ruleset you're using. I therefore use the programmed options more as a narrative-driven solo game rather than a competitive game.

      What I sometimes do at the nit level (at a resolution below what the books tells me to do) is to formulate 2 options and roll a die. Sometimes a risky option and then that one is only chose with 1/6 probability etc.

      Delete