Wargames structures - Initiative

So, one of the things that is germaine to just about every wargame is the way it handles the passage of time.  This occurs on a couple of different levels, depending on the wargame.  First, there is the passage of time for the simulated inhabitants in the wargame - how much do they get to do during the passage of simulated time?  But, more importantly, is the passage of time (real world) for the game it self.  By that, I mean to ask, how are the actions that the players are taking - moving the pieces, engaging in simulated combat, and so forth?  This is usually divided up into some mechanism where either both sides (or all sides) do their actions more or less simultaneously, or they take turns doing their actions.  In both cases, regulating who goes when is done by a number of different mechanisms that we can look at, and call Initiative.

First, the treatment of a wargame as a classic two player game of conflict, where the players take turns, and during a player's turn does all the allowable actions, is often referred to as "you go, I go" type initiative.  This is the way it is done in many board based wargames, and has a long history going back to the abstract wargames of antiquity (such as Chess, Chatauranga, and Hnefetafl).  I have heard it commented that this is a natural way to view elements in a battle, even if it is implemented a little artificially in a game.  The idea, within a battle, is that there are a series of actions that then get reacted to, forming a sort of rhythm.

Determine who gets their turn involves initiative.  The simplest manner is to determine the order (which is player A going first, and which is player B going second) during the first turn (which may be by a dice toss, or agreement, or set by a scenario) and then following that throughout the game. We can call this a "regular, alternating initiative".  The turn sequence (with two sides in the scenario, Red and Blue, taking turns in the sub-turn role of Player A and Player B) would look like this

Regular Alternating Initiative
Turn 1
 Player A - Red
 Player B - Blue
Turn 2
 Player A - Red
 Player B - Blue
Turn 3
 Player A - Red
 Player B - Blue

 A variant would be to, at the beginning of each turn (which consists of two sub-turns - one for each player), randomize (dice or cards) to see which is player A for that turn, and which player B. We can call this a "random, alternating initiative".  A feature of this is that there is a chance that the same side does not go first every time.  However, one of the side effects of this is that it is possible for a side to get to go twice in a row (in fact, it is guaranteed that this will happen, if the order does change).  See this example:

Random Alternating Initiative
Turn 1 - dice toss, Red wins

 Player A - Red
 Player B - Blue
Turn 2 - dice toss, Blue wins
 Player A - Blue
 Player B - Red
Turn 3 - dice toss, Blue wins
 Player A - Blue
 Player B - Red

 Now, for the "feature" of this method, you can see that between the end of Turn 1, and the beginning of Turn 2, the Blue side goes twice in a row.  In a game with a large number of turns, the rules of probability would tend to balance out this effect, however in a game with only a short number of turns (say, 3,4,5 or 6 turns) it might provide a very large benefit to one side or another, depending on how the randomizing turns out.

Each turn in a "you go, I go" type game itself typically has several phases, that allow for the ordering of the activities to get done.  These might include - issuing orders, movement, shooting, melee combat, morale tests, artillery - and so forth, depending on the type of combat that is being simulated.  A very common variant of the "you go, I go" type game is one where those phases get mixed up. 

The turn (and phases) of a game with "regular phases" might look like this.

Regular Phase Turn Structure
Turn
 Player A
  1. Shooting
  2. Movement
  3. Combat
  4. Morale Tests
 Player B
  1. Shooting
  2. Movement
  3. Combat
  4. Morale Tests

When some of the phases during a Player Turn actually belong to the side that is taking the role of the Non-Phase Player, we see an intermixed phase structure.  A good name for this sort of turn ordering is Intermixed Phase Turn Structure.

Intermixed Phase Turn Structure
Turn
 Player A
 1. Player A moves units
 2. Player B shoots
 3. Combat
 4. Morale Tests
Player B
 1. Player B moves units
 2. Player A shoots
 3. Combat
 4.  Morale Tests

Typically the point of having a Intermixed Phase structure is to introduce some elements that allow for each side to react to some of the actions of the other side.  In the above example, what is being replicated is the reaction of units to shoot at the enemy as they see them getting closer.  Depending on the simulation intent of the rules writer, this sort of structure will help them bring out what they think is important for the aspects of combat that their rules represent. One of the most common ways that this is done (perhaps inadvertently) is that during Combat, most wargames allow both sides to score casualties - so that both sides are operating more or less simultaneously during a combat phase).

An alternative to "You go, I go" is something that we can name "We go" - this means that there is a turn, divided up into Phases, but during each phase there is a structure for determining who goes first.  This can be either Regular within the turn (meaning that the same side goes first for each Phase), Regular across turns (meanign that the same side goes first each Phase, and this is the same every turn), or some combination.  As the two players are alternating within a phase, but that the phases are being executed more or less concurrently, this can be named Alternating Order, Phase Concurrent Initiative (either regular or random, intermixed or not).  A turn structure here might look something like this:

Alternating Order, Phase Concurrent Initiative
Turn
Phase 1 - Movement
 Player A moves
 Player B moves
Phase 2 - Shooting
 Player A shoots
 Player B shoots
Phase 3 - Combat
 All contacting units combat
Phase 4 - Morale
 All units requiring tests take them

An alternative to this scheme is to have regular Phases, but to have randomized activity order within the Phase - perhaps by dice or unit quality or by the turn of a card.  A common version of this are rulesets based on the structure of The Sword and the Flame - there is a Movement Phase, a Shooting Phase, a Combat Phase, and a Morale Phase.  But within the Movement Phase, cards are used to determine which units move before other units.  The same is done during the Shooting Phase. Combat (hand-to-hand) and Morale are done in preset orders (either by the order in which they arose during the movement phase, in the case of Combat, or all simultaneously in the case of Morale).  Such a turn scheme might be accurately labeled Randomized Order, Phase Concurrent Initiative.

Randomized Order, Phase Concurrent Iniatiative
Turn
Phase 1 - Movement
 All eligible units may move, randomized order based on flipping cards
Phase 2 - Shooting
 All eligible units may shoot, randomized order based on flipping cards
Phase 3 - Combat
 All contacting units resolve hand-to-hand combat in the order in which they contacted during Movement.
Phase 4 - Morale
 All units test morale simultaneously

The most common alternative to the Alternating Order, Phase Concurrent Iniative scheme (which is really quite popular in a lot of rulesets, especially those representing time periods where the interplay of space and time are important, such as when movement and shooting combine to have a big effect on the combat) is to have the Phases actually structured so that they are as close to Concurrent themselves as possible.  This would be a Simultaneous Order, Phase Concurrent Initiative.  What this structure seeks  to do is to remove any advantage for going first.  It is not perfect, especially in the area of movement, without the use of some blind method for plotting movement ahead of time (such as writing turn by turn movement orders, and having them interpreted by a referee.  Many players, especially modern players, find this unsatisfying, because they want control over where their units move. 

A typically scheme employed here is to use a "test" - usually a dice test - to see how the individual troops will react to situations that arise out of the simultaneous activities of the players.  This replicates the effects of command and reaction by the troops, at a level of command lower than what the player is exerting. For instance, a player may tell a unit (a battalion? perhaps) to move ahead.  In this situation the player may be taking on the role of a Brigadier or Division Commander.  But as the battalion moves ahead, it finds itself the target of a charge.  The Battalion commander in real life would rely on personal initiative and training in order to decide what to do next.  This might be to fire on the chargers, form square, withdraw, adopt skirmish formation, or whatever.  The rules would try to anticipate these types of situations, and enable a dice test for a unit to try in order to see if they can do these things.  This structure is often included in all of the different initiative types presented here, but it is especially important in the simultaneous phase execution type game.

A Simultaneous Order, Phase Concurrent Initiative turn example might look something like this:  (Note, to illustrate the dice test mechanism, I have separated out Charging from normal Movement)

Simultaneous Order, Phase Concurrent Initiative
 Turn
Phase 1 - Charges
 Both players declare charges simultaneous
 Both players move charging units
 Units targeted by charge may roll reaction to countercharge
Phase 2 - Movement
 Both players move units that did not charge, and were not contacted
Phase 3 - Shooting
 Units that did not move or charge may shoot (even if contacted)
Phase 4 - Fighting
 All units in contact resolve hand-to-hand combat
Phase 5 - Morale
 All units requiring test for fail or recovery

Another theme popular in rule sets is to have the phases occur, in order, for a part of a side (either an individual unit, or perhaps a group of units such as a battle group or a brigade), but to have those parts be either randomized or alternate.  Once such a "part" is activated (whether a unit or a group of units), it will do it's allowable phases - movement, shooting, combat, etc.  Then the next "part is activated.  The ordering here is done either on a regular bases, where alternation between sides is common, or it is randomized perhaps by dice toss to determine regular order at the beginning of a turn (such as in Shako II, where you roll an "initiative dice" to determine the order of divisions at the beginning of each turn), or by the flip of a card (such as in rulesets where you have a card for every brigade in the game, and those are shuffled at the beginning of a turn, and then revealed to see which brigade does its actions first).  These two different initiative schemes can be called, respectively, "Regular Order, Phase by Command" and "Randomized Order, Phase by Command" - where the 'parts' are referred to as the "Command".  Here is an example of the second scheme.

Randomized Order, Phase by Command
Turn
Reveal a Card, identifying a Brigade
Brigade performs all of the following Phases
 Phase 1 - Movement
 Phase 2 - Shooting
 Phase 3 - Combat
 Phase 4 - Morale
Next Card

This scheme can vary by allowing for the intermix of other phases, for enemy units encountered on the table top (such as reaction moves, reaction fires, counter charges, etc).

When there is a basic "You Go, I Go" structure (even with their variations, these are the simplest to implement, and the simplest to explain in written rules), sometimes the unnatural regular alternation of moves is controlled by a dice roll (or some other method, such as commander's value or army effectiveness, etc).  In this case, the dice roll will determine how many actions may be done in one or several of the phases of the turn.  For instance, in the DBA family of games, a dice for command points will determine how many "commands" (consisting of one base, or a group of connected bases) may move during a turn.  They move, and then shoot, and then all in contact fight, and the turn is over.  Not every unit gets to move (or shoot) each turn.  This scheme is applied, in different rule sets, to almost all of the various initiative schemes presented here so far.

The Piquet family of miniatures rules mixes up this ordering one more way.  In those rules, it is common to have a Turn consist of a number of different Actions (regulated by some counter, called Initiative Points among other things).  Once those actions are all used up, the turn is over.  In Piquet, there is a mechanism to see how many of those actions a Player gets to use at one time, based on opposed dice rolls by the different sides.  The higher of the dice tossed gets to go, and he gets the difference in initiative points.  How the player gets to expend those initiative points is based on a randomized presentation of options.  In Piquet, it is a card, showing a single type of action (move, shoot, reload, etc).  The player may expend as many actions as desired on that single type of action, and then flips the next card to see what else may be done.  Eventually the player runs out of points, and the next opposed dice roll is made.

Another variation to the many different schemes related to "You Go, I Go" is one where a player may decide to "steal the initiative" from his opponent.  In this case, one of the two players is determined to have the Initiative - in other words, it is that player's turn to execute phases for his forces.  The other player (through a number of different possible mechanics - expending command points, rolling dice, flipping cards) may try to "steal the initiative" - meaning that they get to execute phases for their own forces instead, trumping the actions of the first player.  In order to be fare, such a scheme is often structured around some penalty for the player attempting to steal the initiative.   In addition to the "You Go, I Go" type turns, this variation is also common in the Phase by Command type schemes - where it becomes the turn for one Command (brigade, squadron, wing, etc) to do their actions - another player may decide instead to attempt to steal that order for one of their own Commands.  If successful, then the turn changes to the new Command, but if not successful, then there is often a penalty for that other Command (such as, it may not go this turn, or the player loses one of a finite group of command points, or something similar).

A recent, but popular variation of "You Go, I Go" is one where within the turn structure of a Side, that side gets to make leadership tests to see which of his units (or Commands) gets to act, and how much they get to act.  Penalties arise from failing the leadership tests required to get units to act (for instance, after so many failures, the turn may pass to the other player, or again, finite command points may need to be expended in order to 'try again').  This scheme is in the recently family of miniature rules sets coming from the Rick Priestley school of design, starting with Warmaster, and also seen in the Warlord Games family of titles (Black Powder, Hail Caesar, etc) and the Blitzkrieg Command series of rules.  It works very well, and puts the emphasis of command decision on the player, but with the uncertainty of a dice roll involved in order to carry out the desired orders.  Very effective design.

Units, Environment, Movement, Weapons - City States of Aquaria

So, I have been pretty busy since I first got the idea, and started sketching out particulars, for the "City States of Aquaria" game.  Here is a rundown of my progress.  I even got some materials to make playtest counters and a map, but then things got REALLY busy in my real life, so it is creeping along.

Environment - The environment of the game is a science fiction setting - the battles that take place between various techno-feudal city states on a water planet.  These city states have large domed underwater cities, with underwater industry, robo-farming, manufacturing and resource extraction.  High speed movement between these domed cities is by tube train, and there are all manner of craft designed to navigate the depths below, surface, and atmosphere above the shallow seas of the world.  Man has even adapted to living and moving around underwater pretty easily.

Klaus Bürgle: City under the Sea*

In wargaming terms, this means that the action will take place on a hex map showing the sub-aqua terrain.  In the game, within a hex, units can be at 5 different heights.  Ocean floor, low ocean, mid ocean, high ocean, and Surface.  Underwater topography (hills, plateaus) will be in one of three different levels, sort of like the "wedding cake" hills of table top miniature gaming, or of the older BattleTech maps.  Each level (low, mid, high) will correspond to one of the ocean levels.

Units will be able to move about in the water, although some units will be tied to either the bottom, or the surface.

Movement - Each type of unit will have a basic movement allowance.  This is, generally speaking, expended to move through the hexes on the map.  Units that can change levels on their own (i.e. - not those tied to the ocean floor, or to the surface) can also expend points of their movement allowance to change levels.  In general, a movement point is spent to move one hex, or to change one level.  The moving unit must move laterally (on it's own level) one hex, before changing levels, and must make a lateral move between each level change.  The exception to this is that if the unit ONLY wants to change levels, then it can expend it's entire movement allowance to go up or down 1 level, while remaining in the same hex.

Units - As mentioned in the earlier post the types of units are basically four categories.  Those are:

1. Floor Units, which move around mainly on the ocean floor.  This includes Infantry, Armor, and Artillery.
2. Ocean Craft, which includes different sized man-made submersible craft, up to and including massive multi-weapon system craft.  Units include Aqua-Jets (small two man fighters), Stingrays, Aqua-Cruisers, Leviathans and Leviathan-Hunters.
3. Biologicals, which includes various animal types that have been modified for combat, and are controlled and directed by a human telepath.  These include the semi-intelligent sea mammals of Aquaria, the Cetas, Orcas, and Megas.  Also, the enormous monsters from the depths, the Behemoth, the Kraken, and the Gargantua.
4. Surface Units, which include large surface units, and a variety of atmospheric fast movers.  Units include Surface Control Ships, Attack Hovers, and Assault Hovers.

Weapons - Most of the Ocean Craft (except for the Aqua-Jets and the Stingrays) mount multiple weapons, the choice of which (depending on the scenario) will be up to the player to choose.  Most weapons will have a chance to destroy just about any unit from one shot (if it is successful), but the larger monstrous biologicals (Behemoth, Kraken, and Gargantua), as well as the larger ocean craft (Leviathans and Leviathan Hunters) have a much harder time of being destroyed from a single hit (although it is possible, just very rare).  Instead, hits against them destroy capabilities (weapon mounts).

I have basic stats on almost all of these units, and I'll try to get it posted for next week's Wargaming Wednesdays, here at Gaming with Chuck.

---

This is some inspirational video.  There is so much cool stuff going on in this video, I just gotta watch it over and over.  The "bad guy" underwater city, at about 15 minutes in is very inspirational.  Also, Hydronic Rockets? Awesome!

---

* Painted 1964 by German futurist Klaus Bürgle for "Das Neue Universum". This and other paintings by Bürgle can be seen on www.retro-futurismus.de

City States of Aquaria

A new project underway at Gaming with Chuck Headquarters - moving slow, and sure to carry into the new year - is a wargame design. It will be a tactical wargame, set in a science fiction setting. The setting is this -

The planet Coralon-VI is a water world, that was settled by a colony ship from Earth, about 600 years ago, during the first wave of Colonial expansion. As there is not much in the way of free standing land on the surface of Coralon-VI, named Aquaria by the original settlers, a sequence of genetic modifications to the frozen embryos on the colony ship was made, so that starting wih the first batched of locally born colonists, all of the long term inhabitants of Aquaria would be able to breathe and live underwater, in the shallow seas.

Thus began the original settlement of the planet. Underwater cities, as well as modified local plant and animal life, gave rise to the City States of Aquaria. Now, however, 600 years after first planetfall, the Philosopher-Princes of the various city states have begun to run out of settlement and development space in the choice areas of the shallow seas. As always in Human history, this has led to a state of war between the city states.

The game will be a tactical game between the armed forces of the various city states of Aquaria. Those forces include not only human warriors, but also undersea craft, surface craft, and cyber-enhanced lifeforms native to the world. I have worked up basic movement and combat sequences, and am in development of the various units, but here is a preview...

• Sea Infantry - basic human warriors, adapted to underwater living and combat.
• Sea Crawlers - armored vehicles, designed to operate on the bottom of the sea, capable of carrying heavy weapons.
• Warrior Fish - various sized fish, enhanced with weapons and armor, trained to respond to commands and operate in combat.
• Sub-Craft - underwater attack craft, small and with crews of usually only 1 or 2 humans.
• Surface-Craft - attack craft that operate on the surface.
• Destroyers, Cruisers, Leviathans - undersea craft, with large crews, and multiple weapon systems.
• Terrors and Krakens - modified sea lifeforms that are not fish, but still have been modified to carry a variety of weapons, etc.

The game will feature simple rules for movement and combat, as well as close-in combat (melee?). I have already worked up the basics for these (moving, fighting, shooting), as well as some basic terrain, for the basic units. I am playing around with turn sequencing, and different C2 structures for the game, either cards or dice or something else.

Wargame Wednesdays - Chartless Combat

Wargame Wednesdays this week will follow up last week's discussion of the CRT with an overview of some of the combat systems used in board wargames, that don't rely on a combat chart.

I would like to investigate a few of these, starting with a game that *is* a wargame, albeit a rather simplistic one.  Risk (rules available here).

Staff and Friends of Gaming with Chuck enjoy a game of Lord of the Rings Risk

Risk, in all its many forms, consists of simply applying strength to the map (in the form of placing or moving armies), and then trying to use your "strength" to overpower that of your opponents.  There is a nice collection of the many different variants of Risk, linked to from the Board Game Geek entry on the original 1959 game. This is done by a simple combat mechanism that relies on compared dice rolls.  For the 2 persons in the world who might be reading a gaming blog, but for whom Risk has never happened, it works like this:  The active player has armies in a number of territories on the map.  On his turn, he can direct as many armies, from a territory, as he likes (except 1 - he must always leave at least 1 army in a territory), into an adjacent territory that has enemy armies in it.

  The attack is then played out in rounds, until either one side or the other is eliminated, or the attacker calls off the attack.  The attacker may roll up to 3 dice, but never more than one dice per attacking army (of course, he had to leave behind at least one to garrison the territory he moved from).  The defender may roll up to 2 dice, but never more dice than he has armies defending the territory.  Then the dice are compared - the highest dice are compared first, then the second highest (if each side rolled at least 2).  

The comparison is simple - highest roll wins, with a tied roll going to the defender.  The loser in this comparison loses an army.  Simple.  Elegant.  And, unfortunately, without a lot of room for modification.  There are variants of Risk that allow re-rolls, and those that allow for additional dice (but never more than the number of armies you have to lose), and those that allow bonuses to be applied to your own dice, and minuses to be applied to your opponents dice, but that is about it.  We will call this mechanism the "opposed dice roll" mechanism.

War at Sea from Avalon Hill (1975) is a multiple dice mechanism, but it is not an opposed dice mechanism.  Rather, each unit in War at Sea has two combat factors - Offense and Defense.  The Offense factor represents the number of dice that the unit would roll in combat against a target.  Each 6 inflicts damage, and each 5 inflicts disruption.  Each 6 rolled entitles the shooter to roll another d6 to see how much damage is done.  The Defense factor is how many damage points a target has.  Whenever a ship takes a Disruption result, at the end of the current combat round, it must return to a friendly port (at which point the Disruption marker is removed, but the ship is out of combat).  All 6s are resolved before 5s, so the ship will accumulate all damage from all shooters shooting against it in a current round (to see if it is sunk) before checking to see if it is disrupted and needs to return to port.  The combat is played in rounds - first the defender choosing which targets all of his shooters (which can be ships, air squadrons, or submarine) will shoot at.  Prior to the first round, there is a special round of ASW where all ships that can defend against submarines get to shoot at incoming submarines.  But the mechanism for rolling for, and determining hits/damage is the same.

 This technique can be called the "dice against target value" mechanism.  There are a lot of possible modifications that can be worked with this mechanism, such as altering the number of dice that a unit can roll (which happens in War At Sea, based on damage), or altering the target number that must be rolled.  The defense value of a target (which determines how many hits a unit can absorb before destruction, or in the case of War at Sea, how much damage, resulting from hits) can be modified.  So, even though this is, in some ways, a simpler mechanism than the opposed dice roll mechanism (simpler in that all dice rolls are against a single, static target value, or set of target values, rather than being at the shifting target of another dice roll), the fact that each unit has multiple factors (attack and defense), as well as the static target numbers, means that there can be more nuance and alteration representing shifting states in the combat.



In 1981, Frank Chadwick had a great (and to this day, still widely played) game design called "A House Divided" which also uses a chartless combat system.  There were a number of follow on designs (all published by GDW) that came after A House Divided (1981), including Soldier King (1982) and Attack in the Ardennes (1982), that used slight variations of the same system.  In this system, each unit has a basic combat value.  When it is attacking, it rolls a dice.  If the dice comes up equal to or less than the combat value, then a hit is scored on the enemy unit.  The combats are played in rounds, with the defender going first each round, and units being applied evenly before doubling up, but that is it.  Assign a unit, roll one dice, if it is less than your target number, you cause a hit.  Each game has different units that can take 1 or more hits, so the results of being hit vary with unit type.  Typically, when a unit is hit, it is reduced to a damaged state, and it's combat factor is reduced as well.  Some units (such as armor units in the Attack in the Ardennes game) have modifiers that are applied to the combat factor of those shooting against them (representing either large units, or in the case of tanks, heavy armor).

New version of A House Divided, showing Blue vs Grey on custom stands - the combat number for each unit can be seen, this is the target number for the dice throw to determine hits on the enemy.

 We can see that this system is also a "dice against a target value" system, but we will differentiate between this system, and that of War at Sea.  The difference is this - War at Sea has a "multiple dice against a target value" mechanism and House Divided has a "single dice against a target value" mechanism.This system allows for changes in the target number based on situation (for instance, against a heavy unit that as a modifier for it's enemies; against a unit in a defended area like a trenchline; or while making a hasty attack, like infantry vs cavalry, or across a river, or in bad weather, etc), and allows for different types of unit degradation by having specific values that a *hit* unit reduces to.  But that is it - not as many types of modification as with the "multiple dice against a target value", mostly because one of the variables - the number of dice - has been removed.

A  brief mention should be made of the wide family of Axis and Allies games (designed by Larry Harris, and first published in 1981 by Nova Games - the same year as A House Divided).  Again, these are often considered "simple" wargames by the hex-and-counter crowd (and they are, comparatively speaking), but they are also based on a "single dice against a target value" as with the Frank Chadwick system.  The biggest difference is in the complexity of the interaction between units and the map - there is a lot of detail and nuance in the Chadwick designs (and all the games that have come after them, there are a number from modern publishers), and the interaction between units and the map in the Axis and Allies family of games (which is very, very simple in comparison). A notable difference is that in Axis and Allies, and it's derived other titles, each unit as a target number based on whether it is on Offense or Defense.  On Defense, for instance, both Infantry and Armor units are trying to roll for the same target number, but on Offense, the target number for Armor allows for twice as many kills as an Infantry unit on Offense.  And so on for all the unit types.

Combat chart for Axis and Allies showing different target numbers for offense and defense.

As a further development of the "multiple dice against a target value" mechanism, there is a whole family of games, championed primarily these days by Columbia Games, but also frequently by other companies, especially GMT.  These are called, collectively, Block Games.  In this mechanism, a wooden block represents a military unit, and it stands up so it's current status and parameter level is only visible to the player owning the unit (typically).  When the unit gets into combat, it is laid down, as is the opposing unit(s), and both players can see the parameters.  The blocks are square, and have multiple values on them, based on damage levels to the unit, and the blocks can be rotated, the current state being the values on the side facing up when it is standing and facing the owning player.  These games frequently use multiple dice per unit, based on the damage state of the unit.  A full strength infantry unit, for instance, may have 4 strength points - meaning it could roll 4 dice in combat.  It would have a target number, which might be modified by the situation (terrain, type of attack, etc) or by the nature of the target unit.  An older design that uses this variation of the "multiple dice against a target value" mechanism is Napoleon: The Waterloo Campaign, 1815, available from Columbia these days, but years ago it was available through Avalon Hill.  Originally the game was out from Gamma Two, but they became Columbia.

Obviously a solo game, as all of the units for both sides (French, and also British/Prussian) are facing the same way.  But the strength markers - dots - can be seen on the outside edge of each block, with the unit type represented by the symbol in the middle.

The interesting thing that is presented with the block games version of "Multiple Dice against a Target Value" is the attrition effect on the dice thrown.  And the (typically) mechanism for re-acquiring lost dice, through repair (reconstitution) of the units.  The types of modifications to the dice thrown and target numbers are very similar to other types of games using this mechanism, with the additional feature of the combat attrition affecting the dice thrown.  Earlier articles covered a variety of different block games and their mechanisms in Blocks of War I: Hellenes by GMT and then Blocks of War II: Wizard Kings.

The final variation on "Multiple Dice against a Target Value" is the alternative to the Block games from Richard Borg, the Command and Colors family of games.  In these games, each unit has a number of dice that it rolls (that, typically, is not affected by attrition), and each type of unit determines the results of the dice - which are varied and based on special dice, with special symbols indicating hits, retreats, morale effects, and so on.  The number of dice in these titles is modified by terrain, and sometimes by range, but not by the hits on the parent unit.  The dice results available are modified by situation (you can case a hit on a Sword in close combat, but not in missile combat), or by target type (Red Infantry Units ignore Sword hits), or by formation (if the target unit has two adjacent friendly units, it ignores the first Flag result).  So by using different symbols, for different results, a very varied, but nuanced to simulate the types of combat involved in the particular game, results.  This series of games, and the dice and their results was covered in an earlier article called Blocks of War III: C and C Ancients: Part 1, the Dice of War.  Since that time, Command and Colors: Napoleonics has been released.  Excellent game, but I think that my favorite in the series is still torn between Memoir: 44 and Ancients.

That's it for now on chartless combat.  I tried to move from Risk (a simple game, but with an opposed dice mechanism) up through a number of others, both easy and complex.  I tried to end covering a wide variety of Block games and eventually the Command and Colors series.

Next week on Wargame Wednesdays, a number of reviews of some excellent games from publishers in Virginia.

Wargame Wednesdays - the Combat Results Table

Another new (weekly) feature here at Gaming with Chuck, will be Wargaming Wednesday.  This, of course, is an effort to get some regular (irregular?) content on the blog related (specifically) to wargaming.

 

Classic Wargame - "The Russian Campaign" by Avalon Hill

For a first outing in this venture, I can't think of a better part of modern wargaming to consider, than the Combat Results Table (CRT).  Before considering the effect of the CRT on wargaming, a quick history and overview of how it works (if you don't know).

A variety of different 1-6 CRTs

This is a mechanism going back to Von Reisswitz' Krigspiel (1830s), but used specifically in modern wargaming, at least since the early Charles Roberts efforts that lead to the early days of Avalon Hill.  Charles' second outing in design, was Tactics II (1958, the year Avalon Hill was formed) that introduced the Combat Results Table to the modern boardgaming world.  A decent article is available from wikipedia.

The typical (at least if we consider the form that is included in so many of the Avalon Hill Classics) form is a table, numbered from 1 to 6 on the left side (referring to the results of a typical 6-sided dice), and the columns from left to right are labeled with odds, typically ranging from those most favorable to the Defender, all the way to the right with those most favorable to the Attacker.  These "odds" refer to an expressed ratio that comes from comparing the Combat Strength of the Attacker to the Combat Strength of the Defender.

Avalon Hill CRT with a chart (bottom half) allowing odds to be calculated quick and easy, just by comparing modified Attacker's Factor to a modified Defender's Factor

As an example of calculating odds, consider two units (represented in a wargame, of course, as playing pieces) that are engaged in combat.  The attacker has a combat strength of 6, and the defender has a combat strength of 4.  This means that the combat odds are 6 to 4.  This reduces to 3-2, or 1.5 to 1.

Unit counters from an updated version of "The Russian Campaign"

Taking a look at the sample combat results table here, we see that there is not a column the corresponds to 3-2.  In most (typical) cases, the odds round in the favor of the defender, so this would become a 1-1 attack.

Looking at the results in the 1-1 column, we see that if the die reads 1,2, or 3 then the results are that the Defender Retreats (results: DR).  If the die reads 4,5, or 6 then the results are that the Attacker Retreats (results: AR).

Example CRT from a Simulation Publications Inc. (SPI) game

Most CRTs have their results predicated on the military maxim that to have a decent chance (or expectation) of success, an attacker has to have 3-1 odds.  In the combat table pictured here, we can see that if the combat were a dice roll in the 3-1 odds column, the results would be on a 1, the Defender is Eliminated (results: DE).  On a die roll of 2 through 5, the Defender is required to Retreat (results: DR).  Finally, on a die roll of a 6, each side loses a unit (EE - each eliminate).

Okay, so all of these elements - the structure of the table, the fact that the columns are based on numeric odds, the size and nature of the dice, the types of results, the number of results per dice roll.  All these things can change, but basically all of the different types of CRTs result in a table of combat results, with a random (stochastic) factor being introduced by a dice roll (of course, there are dice-less CRTs, but we'll ignore them for now).

The fact that a CRT (at least in early form) gave the results of Eliminate, Retreat, or Exchange for either the Attacker or Defender or Both (in the case of Exchange), it meant that if a combat occurred and a unit was affected by it, the WHOLE unit was affected (either eliminated or retreated).  This means combat had a certain discrete granularity - if the units were Battalions, then whole Battalions were either living or dying in combat.

Example CRT (or BRT - Battle Results Table) from Chariot Lords (Excalibre Games, 1975), showing the "whole unit" effects, but rather than call it "Eliminate", here it is called being "Smote" to evoke the Biblical Warfare theme.  Below is a separate combat type CRT - detailing Siege results.

As games grew more complex, the idea of half units (basically, being able to make change due to losses in combat) came about - which is a much more typical representation (it seems) to real life combat.  No matter how bad a unit does, in MOST situations, it would survive the encounter with some fighting strength.  What this has, as an effect on combat, is that encounters are not so immediately decided, but tend to last a while.  In a lot of cases, this means games give the player the ability to react to results in combat, by moving in reinforcements, withdrawing, etc.

Another reaction to CRT based combat was to introduce separate combat factors for Attack and Defense.  This was done, early, in Blitzkrieg from Avalon Hill - Artillery units had high offensive combat values, but basically the same as an Infantry unit for defense.  Very nice, for the mid 1960s.

An interesting modification to the basic CRT is to have multiple results per dice roll.  This could be a result to the Attacker and Defender, or a Destroyed result, and Retreat result, for instance.  In cases where aggregated units (companies, battalions, divisions, brigades, etc) are involved, it IS likely that any combat will result in losses to both sides.  This type of CRT result is more nuanced, and definitely reflects the cost to a unit to engage in even a "successful" combat.

In 1970, PanzerBlitz was published by Avalon Hill, designed by Jim Dunnigan.  This is a game based on small units engaging with each other.  In order to reflect the effects of morale and disruption, the CRT for this game could result in a unit being eliminated, or disrupted.  Since combat was very tactical, the different ranges of the weapon systems involved was represented by allowing attacking units to engage at range.  Each unit had an attack strength, a defense strength, and a range.  Additionally, each weapon system was a different class weapon (armor piercing, high explosive, or infantry), and each unit type was a different class target (armored, soft, or infantry).  Depending on how these weapon and target classes interacted would determine if there was a modifier to the attack strength, before consulting the Combat Results Table.  So, this represents more changes (disrupted, versus destroyed or retreated) (weapon/target pairings resulting in changes to attack factor), to the basic idea of the CRT.  By the way, following up on PanzerBlitz, there were (and still are) a large number of small unit, or individual tank, type games that have a similar CRT mechanism. This even included the highly successful science fiction games of OGRE and G.E.V. from Metagaming (later Steve Jackson Games).

OGRE CRT, expanded out to work with either 1d6 or 1d12, showing Disruption (D) and Elimination (E) results for the target unit.

Not described yet, but in many games from the beginning, is the effect of terrain on combat, in a combat system based on a CRT.  Often this will come to play in one of two different ways - first, it could be a multiplier or modifier to the defense strength (or combat strength) of the defender.  If they are in, for instance, terrain that makes them hard to acquire, or protects them physically (like in a built up area, or in a fortress), then an increase in their combat strength will likely result in lower odds on the CRT, meaning a reduced chance for effect.  Second, it could result in "column shift" effects.  This refers to shifting the column (the odds based column, in most cases) to the left or right, representing reduced or increased chances of dealing significant damage to the defender.

PanzerBlitz CRT, along with Terrain Effects, and also elevation, and weapon/target pairing tables.

In the days of board wargaming, prior to heavy influence by computerization of the hobby, there was a large percentage of gamers who participated in Play by Mail gaming.  In this situation, each player has a game set up at their own home, and moves are exchanged via mail.  These days it is done via email, or through digital software representing the game, but exchanging turn information digitally.  When done through the mail, there was a requirement to have a combat results table that could be consulted by both sides, and based on some unpredictable (I won't say random) number.  The answer was the stock listings in the newspaper.  The players would agree on a newspaper they would consult.  When they completed a turn, there would be an agreed to sequence of order that the combats would be resolved in.  And there would be an agreed to Stock listing that would be the beginning of the combat.  Each dice roll required in the combat would be based on the final digit in a stock price.  This gave a sequence of numbers (that each player could consult independently), each from 1 to 10.  Of course, then, this required a CRT that was keyed to the random factors being 1-10 rather than the typical 1-6.  Such charts were produced, and Avalon Hill even made them available in "play by mail" kits for their popular titles.

There are still games (plenty) that get published using a CRT for combat resolution.  However, there have been lots of other mechanisms for doing unit-to-unit combat in the years since Tactics II.  The next article on Wargaming Wednesdays, here at Gaming with Chuck, will detail some of the alternate systems.