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

So I played two more turns. Most of the action was exchange of fire, and Red failed a couple of command rolls, seriously halting the offensive towards Blue. One morale results also forced one of Red's infantry units in the centre to charge out of revenge, but the charged failed miserably. So I called the game, and gave victory for Blue.

Here's the end situation, on all 3 sections of the battlefield.

The middle section, with Red having lost 4 infantry units, seems a lost cause for the offensive.

Red's left flank, where a feint attack was started, but the situation ended in a stalemate.

Red's right flank, nothing much happened here on both sides.

One might think the scenario failed, because Red didn't manage to take Blue's position, but it's sometimes too easy to ally oneself psychologically with the attacking force in a solo game. If Blue would have been played by a player, Blue would claim a major victory!

Nevertheless, Red could have done things differently. Too many units were locked up on the flanks, taking a more passive role as per the initial orders. In a "real game", these units would have advanced as well. Red could have used his artillery better, now they were mostly useless. But that's precisely the fun part about these programmed scenarios: you get a plan of action, and you should try to stick to it as closely as possibly. And yes, I did learn something -- that attacking in the centre without a good follow-up on the flanks is not a good idea :-)

Also, the Programmed Wargames Scenarios book provides an outline of a plan, but as a solo player, you still have to implement it at the lower unit-level detail. So I don't regard such games as "me against the AI", or "one AI against another AI", but more as a learning exercise, a way to try things out, and see what works and doesn't work with the rules you're using.

To the next scenario!

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

The next turn in my solo game. He battle has turned in the "grind phase" - less or no manoeuvring, more combat resolution and die rolling.

Red is pushing in the centre, and I decided it was a good time for Red to charge Blue's artillery. That was not such a good idea ... the dice gods were very favourable to Blue and the charge failed miserably. Perhaps I should give artillery some penalties when receiving  charge ;-)

Red is pushing hard n the centre. Blue is still holding the hills in the North.

The failed charges ... One Red regiment destroyed (hence all the casualties), the other Red regiment is still in the fight but is down to "2" in its combat effectiveness.

 Blue is content to fire back at Red ...

View on the central section from Red's side. Red's infantry is taking heavy fire, and has not really been able to fire back and do significant damage to Blue.

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).

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

I played turns 3 and 4 of the programmed solo game.

The orders and responses didn't change, so these two turns were continuation of the previous plans. So far, the situation:

Red (Union), attacking:

• Mission: "Seize the broken ground dominating the roads to the north"
• Units (rolled for): 10 infantry, 2 light infantry, 5 cavalry, 3 artillery. I multiplied the units in the book by 1.5 to get a good troop density on the table. I gave Red 4 commanders.
  
• Execution (rolled for after Blue's deployment): "Attack centre after feinting to weak flank". The weak flank was determined at random, and resulted in the left flank.
• Response rolled after Blue's attack from the woods on the left flank: "After defeating the surprise attack the woods must be cleared and all further woods must be cleared insofar Blue's forces in those woods could surprise Red."

Blue (Confederate), defending:

• "Hold the broken ground to the north of the table"
• Units (rolled for): 6 Infantry, 3 light infantry, 3 cavalry, 3 artillery. I gave Blue 3 commanders.
• Deployment (rolled for): 60% centre, 20% left flan, 20% right flank. Light troops must be divided evenly between the flanks. All troops other than cavalry must be deployed in woods or on hills; reserve of 15% must be maintained in the centre and not in the front rank.
  I decided to deploy as follows:
• right: 1 inf, 1 cav, 2 light
• centre: 1 cav as reserve, 4 infantry, 3 artillery
• left: 1 cav, 1 infantry, 1 light
• Execution (rolled for): You will hold the central section and not give up ground., nor will you counterattack or follow up with the main body. You may give up ground on the flanks although you should aim to hold them to protect the position. You may counterattack off the flanks or counterattack with your reserve to retake them. You should use cavalry and light troops boldly on the flanks to harass the enemy.
• Response rolled for after Red developed its attack on left: Steady ... work out sensible but limited counterplans.

Turn 3, Red: Further development of the attack on the left flank, but gradually launching the main centre attack as well. Since I use command rolls, and a failed one stops the turn, Red didn;t get far this turn. The remaining half of the centre (not in the image) didn't move, nor did anything happen on the right flank.

Turn 3, Blue: On Blue's right flank (upper left in the picture below), firing actions to contain the enemy. Also the centre starts firing heavily. The commander there has a +3 on firing, meaning units only needs a 4+ to be able to fire. Perhaps a bit too generous ...

Turn 4, Red: Again a limited Red turn. I decided to start launching the attack in the centre, so infantry units start to move up. Artillery also limbered up to position elsewhere.

Turn 4, Blue: Blue again had some successful infantry and battery fire and managed to rout completely one of the cavalry units on its right flank (Red's left). Picture below is from behind Blue's lines.

I guess Red's attack on the left flank has been "feinted" long enough, so time to press forwards with Red's attack in the centre.

Ruleswise, I have encountered a slight problem. I use an ativation mechanic. Units activate on a 7+ (with possible bonuses from commanders), and a failed roll ends the turn. But, that means each side on average will activate the same number of units, which favours the side with the lesser number of units, as is often the case in an attack/defence scenario. Perhaps I should switch back to my former system in which I have commanders issue order (and hence, more commanders means more orders on average).

Another problem in my ruleset (although I am aware of it), is that it's a move or fire ruleset, meaning the defender has the edge if he doesn;t have to move. I usually counterbalance this by giving more units to the attacker, but combined with my unit-based activation system (instead of commander-based activation), it doesn't work that well for the attacker.

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

In this semi-lockdown period, time for another sologame. I decided to use the 2nd scenario from the Programmed Wargames Scenarios book, "Broken Ground" using my homebrewn ACW rules. Typically, I use programmed options for both sides.

The idea of the scenario is that the defender is defending a combination of lesser features such as some small hills, woods and some rocky grounds.

The first stage in these scenarios is to generate the ground. The left, centre and right sections of the battlefield are diced for randomly (3 choices for each section), and then one has to translate it to the own wargames table and what works in the rules w.r.t. movement and firing ranges.

Then, I need to role for the defending "Blue" force, and again translate the generated army list to my own system, which is not too difficult. The deployment is rolled for as well, as well as Blue's orders. These state Blue has to hold the centre ground without counterattacking, but Blue has freedom on the flanks and can use cavalry and light troops boldly.

I then do the same for Red. The plan for read is rolled for and results in "attack the centre after feinting to attack a weak flank."

Ok, that all sounds great, so here's the initial setup:

Initial setup as seen from Red's position

Initial setup as seen from Blue's position.

Turn 1, Red - in this battle the Union - starts to move on the left flank.

Turn 1, Blue (Confederates), some responses on the same flank. Light troops deployed in the woods shoot at Red's cavalry.

Turn 2, Red, I rolled for a response since Red was attacked from one of the woods. The response says Red should try to clear the woods and afterwards also clear other woods if they could surprise Red's troops again. So I continue the attack against the wood on Red's left flank, still in accordance with the overall plan and the orders.

Turn 2, Blue. I roll for a response, since Red is attacking on a weak flank for Blue, and the response is "Steady" ... limited counterplans. So I decide that Blue troops will remain where they are and simply fire at Red's troops. Blue's centre is also firing heavily at the upcoming Union troops.

To be continued ...

New edition of Programmed Wargames Scenarios

Caliver books have announced a new edition of Programmed Wargames Scenarios, the excellent book by Charles Grant for conducting solo games.

(image from Caliver Books website)

This book has been part of my wargaming library for many years (if I remember correctly, I bought it 92 or 93 in Orc's Nest, London), and it has been very useful. As I understand, it is also a much sought after book and my fetch high prices on the 2nd hand market.

See my review on boardgamegeek I wrote in 2019.

Programmed Wargames Scenarios (1): Hill Line Defence

For a variety of reasons, it has been a long time since I was able to play a toy soldier game against a human opponent, so I tried something different: a programmed scenario from CSGrant's book "Programmed Wargames Scenarios" (published by WRG).

For those of you not familiar with the concept: the book provides a number of scenarios, in which the terrain, force composition, initial orders and responses are diced for randomly for one or both sides - all within the bounds of a specific scenario.

Since I never really tried a programmed opponent before, I decided to take the first scenario, Hill Line Defence, but have both sides programmed. Just to see what would happen. I also decided to use our own ACW rules in 28mm.

The lay-out of the table (each third section rolled for) is shown below - although the photograph is taken near the end of the game. The attackers have to capture the hill in the North.

Attacker in front, hill to be captured near the other end of the table.

So, first thing was to roll for the attacker's force composition. This gave me 4 infantry units, 2 light infantry, 2 cavalry and 2 artillery units. These types match to our rules. I also needed some generals (our rules require generals to give orders), and a good rule of thumb has been that for every 4 units, 1 general is needed. Hence, 3 generals. I also rolled for the characteristic of each general, resulting in 2 "cautious" generals, and one "rash" one. I gave them command rating equal to 7, 7 and 10, which also fit the notions in our rules.
Next step, to roll for attacker's plan. This resulted in a deployment of most units on the left flank. Also, the light troops and those not in the main attack (middle and right) would just hold the initial line.

As for the defender, I rolled 4 infantry units, 2 light infantry, 2 cavalry, and 1 artillery. I added two generals, both of them were Deliberate - hence the 8 command rating. The deployment resulted in 50% of the troops in the centre, 15% on the left flank, 35% on the right flank. I translated this as well as I could to the troop numbers available. I placed the artillery on the centre crossroads, and a light unit holding the farm. One cavalry unit was a mandatory reserve in the centre.
The plan was to be content to hold the hill or parts thereof at the end of the wargaming day, provided the forces are still united at that location.

So, the game started. The plan for the attacker was pretty straightforward: attack with all units on the left towards the enemy's right. The defender would just fire back at the approaching attacker. A first response roll happened when the cavalry units charged up the hill. The response generated was that the other flank (defender's left) was to be denuded to contain the attack. After a few more rounds of shooting and melee the fight was more or less over, in favour of the attacker.

Solid arrows indicate major troop movements, hollow arrows major fire actions.

 So, did this provide a good game? I think so. One of the difference with playing alone was that if both sides are programmed, you resist the temptation of throwing everything in the fight. The attacker's centre and right were to remain at their initial positions, and that's what I did. At the moment when the defender's left flank was denuded, a player would go forward with attacker's right, but since the responses did not stipulate that, it didn't happen. The result is a fast game, but also a game that feels more "realistic" - if we dare to use that word. Local unit commanders just sit and wait until someone higher up gives the order ...

Great fun! Up to scenario 2 - Broken Ground!