Sunday 2 April 2023

Solo rules for ECW wargaming continues

Following my previous post, I have been further developing the decision tables for solo wargaming with my old Hinchliffe English Civil War (ECW) miniatures. In order to test them, I have been engaging in a series of games where both sides use these decision tables. It has been interesting to observe the course of the games and the various manoeuvres of each army. The latest version of the decision tables can be found later in this post, along with some photographs from a game where both armies are being directed by decision tables (yes, its a long post).

A game about to start

There have been a number tweaks to the decision tables after each game and also to the rules. Some of those larger changes are listed below along with reasons.

Decision table structure and creating decision cards

Decision structure where the Army’s Stance determines the Tactical decision table to use.

The decision structure remains the same, with an overall army level decision table to determine the army's stance and the corresponding tactical decision tables to be used. I have introduced the terms "Army Stance" and "Tactical Cards". A quick thank you to the Jolly Broom Man for suggesting the term "Stance" in his comment - I was struggling to find a suitable term. To simplify matters during gameplay, I have cut and pasted the decision tables onto cardboard so a player can select the card and just focus on the tactics of the current stance without flicking through pages. I will redesign these cards once I am satisfied I am done with amendments.

The decision tables have been cut out and pasted to cardboard from various cereal and biscuit boxes recovered from our recycle bin.

The aggressiveness of an army’s attack stance, or its defensive activity when in a hold stance, is determined by the score of a D3 dice with limits the number of units which can be moved as you work down the priority list of actions on the decision table. Once the number of moves has been met or you have worked through all the priority list items, then the army’s movement phase is over.

Note: I am currently using armies made up of 6-8 units. If using armies were to have a larger number of units I would use a D3+n, added 1 for each additional two units over 8. For example, a 12 units army would roll D3+2.

Change the rules to better align with decision tables

I had originally thought an IGO-UGO approach in the rules would work best, but what I have found is this creates a few other decisions which then have to be addressed in the decision cards. The sequence of events I now use in the rules aims to simplify the decision making the cards have to consider:

At the start of each game turn each player rolls a D6. The highest scoring player will move first as Player A, re-rolling any ties. The sequence of play for each turn:

  1. Player A rolls a D3 and can move that many units.
  2. Player B rolls a D3 and can move that many units.
  3. Both players' units shoot simultaneously.
  4. Both players' units melee simultaneously.
  5. Remove eliminated units.
Another alteration made to the rules was to remove certain tactical decisions from the tables and write them into the game rules. This was especially so for the shooting and melee rules, such as determining the order of priority for shooting targets. Doing this had a couple of benefits:

  1. It simplified the decision tables.
  2. It took away from both generals their ability to select a unit’s targets, not that generals did that I suspect, and certainly levels things up when you are playing one army in a solo game against a decision table.

An example of target priority from the rules.

Target Priority. Select a unit in range that causes the most damage. Where there are multiple choices, then pick the nearest unit.


By combining these rule modifications with decision tables, the focus very much shifts towards generals making battle decisions regarding troop movement, whether it's advancing into combat or defending a particular position.

Note - I will post the full rules once I have written up the changes.

Examples of the decision cards as they currently stand

Here is the second draft of the decision tables which are aligned to the change in the rules.

ARMY STANCE

Decision table for determining an army’s stance. Work through them in the order they are written.

1) The army will retire if any of the following apply:

It is outnumbered and has fewer than two infantry or cavalry units.

2) The army will take a hold its position if any of the following apply:

It is the opening turn of the battle.

It is outnumbered when just counting infantry and cavalry units, or has no cavalry units (ignore dragoons, commanded shot, and artillery detachments)

It still has multiple artillery units who are able to engage the enemy at a distance.

It holds the objective it was tasked with taking.

3) The army will attacking if any of the following apply:

It has more cavalry units

It is yet to hold an objective it was charged with taking.

It equals or outnumbers the enemy when counting infantry and cavalry units.

Select the tactical stance card that meet the above and apply to the tabletop. Review the army stance at the start of each turn.


TACTICAL CARD - HOLD STANCE

This decision table is used when an army is in a HOLD stance.

During the movement phase apply these actions in the order they are written until the number of moved units meet the score of a rolled D3 dice or you get to the end of the list.

1) Any unit can pivot to face an imminent threat.

2) Dragoons and commanded shot units, if not already within 12” distance of an enemy unit, will advance to be ready to harass infantry or cavalry.

3) Cavalry units, unless they have a terrain advantage, will charge other enemy cavalry within range.

4) Cavalry units, unless they have a terrain advantage, will charge other enemy infantry within range.

5) Infantry will hold their position, only moving their reserve or second line to protect the army flank or fill gaps in the line.


TACTICAL CARD - ATTACK STANCE

This decision table used when an army is in an ATTACK stance.

During the movement phase apply these actions in the order they are written until the number of moved units meet the score of a rolled D3 dice or you get to the end of the list.

1) Any unit can pivot to face an imminent threat.

2) Dragoons and commanded shot units, if not already within 12” distance of an enemy unit, will advance to be ready to harass infantry or cavalry.

3) Cavalry units on either wing, but starting with the right wing, will charge other enemy cavalry within range.

4) First line cavalry units on the strongest wing, or the right wing if they are of equal strength, will advance to engage the opposing enemy wing, targeting the enemy cavalry first. 

5) First line cavalry units on the remaining wing will advance to engage the opposing wing.

6) Infantry in the centre will advance to engage the enemy. If not all can advance this turn, start with the right most infantry unit unless there is a unit trailing behind, then advance that unit to maintain a consistent line.

7) Reserve and second line units, infantry or cavalry, will advance and position themselves no closer than 6” to the first line.


TACTICAL CARD - RETIRE STANCE

The Decision table used when an army is in an RETIRE stance.

During the movement phase apply these actions in the order they are written until the number of moved units meet the score of a rolled D3 dice or you get to the end of the list.

1) Any unit can pivot to face an imminent threat.

2) Cavalry units, unless they have a terrain advantage, will charge other enemy cavalry within range.

3) Cavalry will retire.

4) Infantry will retire.

5) Dragoons and commanded shot will retire.



Photographs of a game using decision tables for both armies

The following set of photographs is from one of my recent games using the decision cards to direct both armies.

The Royalist army lines are on the left and Parliament’s on the right.

Both armies exchange artillery fire, and detachments of dragoons advance on the flanks to harass. The Royalist cavalry on their right flank make the first major move and begin their advance. 

Wth low scoring with the D3 dice the only action has Parliamentarian cavalry charge the advancing Royalist cavalry.

The Parliamentarian general has charged forward his right flank and started advancing his centre off the hill.

The Royalist right wing which has been successful, and avoided charging off after the routed enemy, has regrouped to threaten Parliament’s flank.

The Royalist left wing held steady and has seen off Parliament’s cavalry.

The Royalist centre can be seen making their slow advance as their cavalry attack Parliament’s centre which is in a hold stance.

Parliament’s centre having seen off the attack on their flank begin to regroup on the hill in preparation to retire as the Royalist centre continues its advance.


The next post will continue the ECW solo theme…

33 comments:

  1. Very interesting Peter, I am reminded of the solo programmed scenario book recently reprinted by Grant, though your system is looks intuitively easier to apply.

    Is there a way for an army to chance its stance mid game, for example very high casualties to an attacker might cause their stance to ‘drop’ to hold? And might something like that trigger the other side to go over to the attack. It might need more units in play for something like that to be useful, but just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the stance gets checked each turn. I popped the note at the bottom of the Army Stance decision table (somewhat hidden). After loss of a unit and the opposition has more infantry and cavalry units a stance will change to hold; or once down to two units and outnumbered drop to a retire stance.

      Delete
    2. Hi Norm, the army stance approach is currently geared to set piece engagements, I am yet to tryout meeting engagements which I suspect will be more complicated.

      Delete
  2. Very very interesting, a lot of useful info to be mulled over. I used the word stance when designing my own AI but changed it to « posture » when applying it to the ECW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am glad it is of interest. I may need to do some reading and check the terms. “Posture” sound good, certainly better than my original “status”. Thanks.

      Delete
  3. Some interesting ideas. My sketched out efforts for solo play have concentrated on the command ability of the general; each personality in the planned campaign, has like Tony Bath's Hyboria, a distinct set of characteristics, the ideas coming from his Campaign book.
    In essence, the main characteristics or preoccupation ( war, honour, love and wealth) is rated for "strength" ( dominant, high, moderate and low) when combined give ratings from 2-8. War, dominant gives 8, while wealth low is 2, honour moderate is 5 etc. Jokers produce a "wit" whom I have determined is a wild card and will throw for a rating on D10.
    It will be Interesting to see if I can incorporate some of your ideas.
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I will have to get out Tony Bath’s campaign book and have another look.

      Delete
  4. Peter, thank you so much for publishing this system, which will enable me to fight ECW solo battles in a much better way than I had been doing. It seems perfectly possible to use this system with other scales of figures (I use 10mm) and rules - not that there is anything wrong with your ECW rules! - simply by adjusting the distances quoted on the Tactical Cards to suit, which is another point in their favour.
    The only downside is that I may now have to raise some proper ECW armies to replace the proxy figures and counters I've been using...
    I shall follow the development of this system with great interest. Thanks again! Arthur

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Arthur. The 12 inch was just shooting range, and the 3 inch is just to separate the units apart, as one side gets pushed back.

      Delete
  5. Excellent post Peter. I love watching these unfold. I think the ability to review and change the army stance is a nice touch in enabling a general to react to what is perceived as a changing situation. I'm watching all of this closely and with great interest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So far the army stance has worked with set piece battles, I am now trying engagement battles and suspect some modification may be required. Thanks.

      Delete
  6. Hmmmm. Some nice ideas there (heaven forbid I’d borrow someone else’s ideas for my own games… 😉).
    By coincidence I’ve just won some painted 25/28mm ECW figures on eBay. I’m not intending as big a set-up as yours - I’ll more be doing skirmishes & small actions rather than real, honest-to-goodness proper battles. Still, I’m always open to inspiration…
    Cheers,
    Geoff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Geoff. Hopefully you may get some reuse of a rule mechanism here and there. Once I get these solo rules settled, I will have to try some other periods and different sized armies. Thanks, Peter

      Delete
  7. This is working out well Peter. It seems nicely geared towards early modern warfare.
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am finding the tactical constraints armies of the period had helps with the solo approach for army stance and tactical decisions.

      Delete
  8. Fascinating stuff Peter. As Norm has already said, this reminds me of the 'Programmed Wargames Scenario' and the options contained there in. Your rules do seem simpler and more flexible, which is a good thing:).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just focusing on one period helps to simplify the possible options and decisions that need to be considered. I am now trying to increase the number of units in the armies.

      Delete
  9. This is working out a treat, albeit I feel D3 moves a tad restrictive. I particularly like the right or strongest wing leading the attack, it just captures the period so well.
    Slightly concerned about what happens if both sides, or the stronger side, has multiple artillery units? Unlikely I'm sure with only 6-8 units per side, but it does look like a logic trap - easiest way out might be to limit artillery ammunition (D3 turns of shooting?).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The artillery in the rules do run the risk of running out of ammunition and are removed. I am relooking at artillery in the rules and decision tables, and also the D3 approach so I can increase the number of units in play.

      Delete
  10. Another aspect you could include in your tables is a random factor to guide a decision. E.g. cavalry might charge in a specific situation, but only with x% chance; with 100-x% chance it will do something else. The x% might even be modified by some specific circumstances.

    Adding probabilities in this way might shortcut having too many "if this ... then that ..." statements, as a prioritization list. A possible list of responses or acions can be weighted by probablities.

    It is a mechanic I use often in solo games, both at army level but also at individual unit level. I state the "default" response, then one or two less likely but more risky responses, attribute a probability to each, and roll the die.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like your approach of a default response with possible options applied based on the dice. So far I have been playing set piece battles and I am yet to try out encounter engagements where this approach may prove very useful. Thanks.

      Delete
  11. It’d be cool to have an AI system tailored made for a specific genre like you’re doing when you’re lacking an opponent. Though if you do it too well it might win all the games! 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Focusing on just the ECW keeps the decision tables reasonably short. If the AI wins all the games, I shall paint more troops for my army :-)

      Delete
  12. Thanks for this, Peter. This looks very interesting and easy to handle - maybe even for free kriegspiel games. I'll try it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am now looking at taking a different approach for the D3, eg, moving a third or half the units, so I can play with more than 6-8 units.

      Delete
    2. If playing with more units, you could roll a D3 per command (2 wings and a centre), with the tactical cards mandating some actions it’s not going to that freewheeling. You could pinch the ‘DBM’ approach and allow some armies in some circumstances to roll the dice and allocate them between commands as desired or according to a predetermined plan.

      Delete
    3. Hi Rob, Thanks for the suggestion, all ideas most welcome. This week I have been playing using modified tactical cards with armies of 12+ units. I am hoping to post progress this weekend. Peter

      Delete
  13. Some interesting looking ideas here Peter...I look forwrad to seeing your rules "published"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am gradually getting to the point where I can write them up and post them. A few more test games.

      Delete
  14. This is really interesting, I think it reflects the rather 'formal' style of battle orders and tactics from the period, where there were a lot of limitations on command, control, formations etc. Looking forward to seeing the end result!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The “formal” style of the period and constraints placed on the commanders certainly helps keep the directions on the tactics cards to a reasonable number. I am now mixing it up a little bit with one or two variables on the army stance card.

      Delete
  15. Rick Kimberley6 May 2023 at 05:14

    I love the stance-based decision charts. I'm going to incoporate them (or something similar) into my future solo games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck with incorporating the decision charts. While I have a couple of updated notes, not much has changed on them.

      Delete