- My main computer, which I had just rebuilt several months ago, died again. This time it was a motherboard failure - so no lost data - but it was basically unrecoverable. Can't complain. I built that computer more than eight years ago and it has held up for all time, through Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP Professional, and finally Windows 7 Ultimate. Even had Ubuntu on there once. I purchased the parts for Dale's PC, The Next Generation, and I have high hopes for it. Hopefully I will get it built this weekend, but because I have switched drive types, I will have to reinstall all of my old software (again), and copy over all of the old data. On the plus side the new PC is a smoker.
- Too many projects, not enough closure. I started too many projects and I wasn't getting enough of anything done. So I decided to start finishing some things started and setting aside those that were not far enough along yet. On the front burner: anything dealing with basing already painted troops. On the back burner: wooden warriors and solo DBA.
- Weather is turning cool, so I can go outside again (I am in Arizona). That means the wife wants me to start stringing more hoses and drip lines for the roses, trees, and such. When it gets cold I will be able to go inside again and work on my projects.
My blog about my wargaming activities. I collect a lot of 15mm miniatures for the American War of Independence and so collect a lot of rules for this period. I started miniatures with Napoleonics, so I have a number of armies in 6mm and 15mm figures for skirmishing. I have15mm WW II figures that I use for Flames of War, Memoir '44, and someday, Poor Bloody Infantry. Finally there is my on-again, off-again relationship with paper soldiers that I sometimes write about.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
When we looked at a single element flanking a single enemy element, there was no obvious advantage to the contact as combat to contacting the front edge; without another element in place, the enemy element simply faces to make front edge contact. Without other factors to consider, that produces no advantage or disadvantage.
Let's look at four basic flanking moves.
|Move to Flank Contact||Move to Flank Contact of Group||Move to Flank Contact of Deep Group||Move to Flank Contact of Supported Group|
The first, Move to Flank Contact, we have seen before. Again, with no other context this move produces no greater value than the Move to Front Contact. The Move to Flank Contact of a Group, creates an advantage for the attacker in that it fragments the enemy's command (i.e. it will now require two PIPs to move the two elements where previously it only required one) in addition to creating a threat of destroying an element should it recoil twice.
The Move to Flank Contact of a Deep Group - which would apply not just to elements with base depths greater than 1/2 the base width, but also to elements in two ranks - creates an even greater threat; if the flanked element recoils once, it is destroyed.
The Move to Flank Contact of a Support Group adds an additional advantage over the Move to Flank Contact of a Group: the flanked and turning element no longer receives rear support. Whether this is advantage should be scored separately is questionable; it will be factored in with the Combat Value differential.
The more I ponder the moves the more I realize that the moves themselves are not the keys, but the list of advantages and disadvantages the move brings. If you consider named advantages and disadvantages, such as:
- Fragments enemy command
- One recoil will destroy*
- Two recoils will destroy
- Breaks rear support**
- Combat Value differential
- Can Quick Kill enemy element
** This will be a factor in changing the Combat Value differential, but is there additional reason to score this?
So, can the actual moves be ignored - thus saving me from cataloging their variations, ad infinitum - and you simply score the side effects the move will produce?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
|Move to Overlapped Front Contact||Move to Double Overlapped Front Contact||Move to Supported Front Edge Contact|
The first move is the Move to Overlapped Front Contact. Essentially this put the attacker at a -1 disadvantage. Compare this to Move to Double Overlapped Front Contact. Although this move results in a -2 disadvantage, does it warrant being treated separately? The last is the Move to Supported Front Edge Contact, resulting in a +1 advantage to the defender.
Consider the following:
|Move to Front Edge Contact||+3||+3||+0|
|Move to Overlapped Front Edge Contact||+4||+3||+0|
|Move to Double Overlapped Front Edge Contact||+5||+3||+0|
|Move to Supported Front Edge Contact||+4||+4||+0|
Given that the difference in each combat is the same, should the moves still be ranked separately or do they have equivalent weight, as they all result in a single element coming into front contact with a group of elements and resulting in a combat at +0? Put another way, which is more important: the move itself, or the resulting combat?
One factor in weighing the Move to Supported Front Edge Contact more heavily is that, unless the supporting element is a Pike, there is the potential for destroying two elements in this single combat. That alone warrants weighting, and thus differentiating this move from the others.
In my mind I have only found one case where the movement of a single element into combat is materially significant; all others seem to indicate that the resulting combat factors are the differentiator. I would like to hear your thoughts on this, either here or preferably on the Solo DBA Yahoo forum.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
|Move to Front Contact||Move to Flank Contact||Move to Rear Contact|
This leads me to wonder: if there are no other factors - this is simply one element on one element and no other element comes into play now, or in the near future (i.e. within the Zone of Control of an enemy element or within one move of contact) - is there really any difference between the three moves? Does it necessitate cataloging all three variations and ranking them separately?
At this point, I am willing to say yes catalog them, just to be complete. But at this point I have no means of saying one move is more or less valuable than another, so they will all be scored the same. As I catalog other moves, I think either the proper scoring will come to light, or the need to differentiate these moves will disappear.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
A fundamental problem for the solo gamer is to determine what move - from all of the possible moves - should be taken for the non-player, or programmed side. In a game like DBA, where you have a command and control mechanism that does not necessarily allow a player to move all of their units every turn, you end up with an additional twist, which is to evaluate the chosen "best" move for one unit against that of another unit and determine which should be taken in those cases where you are restricted and cannot move every unit.
So, to restate, the problem is two-fold:
- Determine, from the set of moves that an element or group could make, which is the best move to make, and
- Determine, from the set of best moves found in #1 above, which ones to make if not enough PIPs are available to do them all.
Solution (or Attempts at Solutions)
In previous versions of De Bellis Antiquitatis Solus (hereafter referred to as DBAS), my version of rules for the wargamer to use DBA for solo games, my approach has been as follows:
- Determine the "best" move for any given element or group of elements. (The "best" move is the one determined as having the highest score - see below.)
- Score that move, based on:
- The Non-Player General's (NPG) current mood (called the Strategic Stance).
- The category of the move (Combat, Defensive, or Approach).
- Conditions resulting from the move, such as whether the following combat gives you a tactical advantage, retreats you out of a losing combat, moves you towards and objective, etc.
Where I did not like the system was that I tried to bite off too much; I was trying to provide a different scoring system for each Strategic Stance of the NPG (there were five). My last effort was to reduce the Strategic Stance Values to three - Cautious, Moderate, and Bold - and then provide a preference to the type of move (Combat, Defensive, or Approach) based on the Strategic Stance. A simply table shows how it works.
|If the Strategic Stance is...||...the First Preference is...||...the Second Preference is...||...and the Third Preference is...|
As you can see from the above, the NPG's mood determines the type of move favored. As I used a scoring system I simply add +4 to the score for the moves in the First Preference, +2 to the score for the Second Preference, and +0 for those in the Third Preference.
This is a good start, but it still requires you score out all possible moves for an element or group before you can figure out what gets the first PIP.
So, one of the ideas is to rank the actual moves and consider them in order. Essentially this means cataloging the possible moves and giving them point values. If each move has a value, it probably needs a modifier based upon how good it is compared to other like moves.
For example, consider the basic Move to Contact, where one element moves into contact with another element. If Move A results in a combat of +5 versus +3 and Move B results in a combat of +3 versus +3, should Move A be valued higher than Move B because A has a better chance of winning the subsequent combat (all other things being equal)? In the past my answer was yes (and probably still is).
Now consider a Group Move to Contact (two elements, moving as a single group, move into front-edge contact resulting in no overlaps but rather initially two one-on-one combats). If the Group Move to Combat results in two +4 versus +3 combats does that move rank higher than a Move to Combat resulting in a single +5 versus +3 combat? As you might imagine, the resulting scoring system that takes all of this into account could probably get out-of-hand pretty quickly.
So, if you go down this path of cataloging moves and assigning scores to those moves, your next basic decision is, do you:
- Rank the moves in order.
- Compare each element/group that can make that move to determine which ones get PIPs first.
- Rank the moves in order in order to assign a basic score to that move.
- Modify the scores based upon additional factors.
- Execute the moves in score order.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
VASSAL has a language and etiquette all its own. In fact, each module typically has variations on the general theme. To try and get back into the swing of it, I decided to play a Memoir '44 scenario solo.
This is a basic scenario designed to get you used to the special rules of the Pacific Theater module; primarily the Imperial Japanese Army Command Rules and the US Marine Corps Command Rules. These two rules help give a national characteristic different from the German and US Army.
The figure above shows the setup of the scenario. I removed the Corsair from the airfield as I did not want to play the Air Pack Rules and discarded the two Air Sortie cards.
Both sides receive five command cards and victory is at six medals. The Japanese, however, can count the airfield, the US artillery bunker, every field bunker, and every town hex as a temporary medal objective, so this makes their winning the scenario much more likely.
Turn 1: The Japanese storm ashore. The Marines bring up some reserves while the artillery starts slamming out rounds, chipping away at the Japanese on-shore.
Turn 2: The Japanese continue their assault, easily driving the Marine unit out of a field bunker, capturing their first temporary medal objective. The Marines retreat back to the town while the artillery continues to hammer away.
At this point I notice that the USMC Gung Ho! rule, allowing one more unit to act on a Section or Tactics card, is pretty powerful.
Turn 3: The Japanese continue to get good cards, and the center section is filled with Japanese troops landing. The Marines open up, however, and really hammer two units.
Turn 4: One Japanese unit badly hit recovers using the Medics & Mechanics card, then charges into the wire, assaulting one of the field bunkers. The Marines in the center continue to pound away and the artillery chips away at one of the original assault units.
Turn 5: The Japanese unit that recovered last turn is used again to assault the field bunker, flanking the Marines and badly mauling them. The Marines, in turn, move out and maul two of the Japanese units in turn.
Turn 6: This is the turning point of the battle as the Japanese start a firefight and blow two Marine units - one of them the Artillery - out of the bunkers. The Japanese now have three victory points. All the Marines can muster is to return to one of the hexes they were forced from. They just don't have the cards.
Turn 7: The Japanese move out and two fresh units assault the Marines in the town, while the weakened units move into the abandoned field bunkers. With two USMC units destroyed and two temporary objective medals before battling, it looked bad. After the dice were rolled, the Marines in the town had taken three hits, eliminating it and allowing the victorious Japanese to take ground and gain another temporary medal objective.
Japanese 6, USMC 0
This is not a balanced scenario, nor even a fun one for the USMC player. The Marines cannot effectively move anywhere as every terrain piece yields victory points to the Japanese. In addition, they can really only fight where the Japanese attack.
Interesting way to spend a few hours, and I am glad I played it solo rather than against an opponent.
- ► 2022 (19)
- ► 2019 (16)
- ► 2013 (32)
- ► 2012 (32)
- ► 2011 (72)
- ▼ October (6)
- ► 2009 (44)
To my Tactical Exercises and Micro-Games post Pat G. asks: I am not an FoW player so please excuse me if I am ignorant of specific game m...
Don and I went down to the local hobby shop ( Orbital Games in Sierra Vista, AZ) and played a test game of Saga , one of many new rules aim...
If you saw the "One-Hour" title and thought "Neil Thomas has put out another one", well you thought like I did. But no, ...
There was a post on The Miniatures Page about a "new" company making 6mm sci-fi figures: Onslaught Miniatures . I took one look a...
As always, let me start off by welcoming new reader TasminP. I hope you enjoy the read. As I threatened in my blog entry about Drums and ...
I have avoided reviewing the rules One-Hour Wargames ( OHW ) by Neil Thomas for quite a while for one simple reason: just reading through t...
I have shown several people my 6mm figures that I have painted and the comment I always get, which is often similar to what I read on the fo...
First, let me start by saying that I did not label this post as a "review". I did not get deep enough into the game to actually re...
So, I played a game of Memoir '44 with Don this weekend while waiting for a program to finish installing and, let's just say it was...
Well, I threatened to start re-basing my 6mm Napoleonics and that is what I have been doing in my spare time. I decided that I wanted them t...
- Huachuca City, Arizona, United States
- I am 58 yrs old now. I bought a house in Huachuca City, AZ working for a software company for the last three years. To while away the hours I like to wargame -- with wooden, lead, and sometimes paper miniatures -- usually solo. Although I am a 'rules junkie', I almost always use rules of my own (I like to build upon others' ideas, but it seems like there is always something "missing" or "wrong").