Operational-level Wargame Design 5: Why use combat values for units? How will combat be resolved? - The missing factors!

Whilst re-reading my recent blog entry about the allocation of combat values to units and the mechanism that will use them to resolve combat, I suddenly realised that I had missed out one of the transient factors that should be included in the Combat Power calculation. The missing factor relates to flank and rear attacks and should read:

• +3: If the attacking unit is attacking an enemy unit in the flank or in the rear.

I also noticed an inconsistency in two of the other transient factors that should read:

• +1: If the attacking unit is artillery firing at a target unit that is an adjacent hex.
• -2: If the attacking unit is attacking an enemy unit that is in defence works, inside a wood, or inside a built-up area.

I hope that this now makes a bit more sense as well as being more consistent in style and terminology.

Keeping a record of my blog entries

I have spent a lot of time over the past few days thinking and writing about the design of my operational-level wargame rules, and at various times I have needed to re-read some of my earlier blog entries to check on what I had written. The fact that I had used plenty of labels helped me to find most of what I was looking for, but some of the things I had written about in some of my blog entries were quite difficult to find.

I therefore decided to print off the ones that I though that I would need to refer to again … and then realised that I did not have an electronic or hard copy of any of my blog entries. I could not work out how to transfer a copy of my blog over to my hard drive, so I used the copy and paste function in my word processor program to transfer the text and images from all of my blog entries into a document.

I split the document up into two-month long sections, each of which has a contents page, and then printed it off. I then hole-punched it, and filed it into a large 4-ring binder.

I now have both electronic and hard copies of my blog entries … and have just spent the last hour or so looking through what I have written since I started last September. What surprised me was how much I had actually written, how many wargames I had played, and how many ideas I had had. It has also made me realise that reviewing your own work can be both rewarding, helpful, and fun, and I have now decided to make copies of my blog entries as I write them. This should ensure that in future I never have to spend more time than is absolutely necessary when I want to look for a blog entry.

Operational-level Wargame Design 5: Why use combat values for units? How will combat be resolved?

Numbers, Predictions and War

The choice of what method to use to resolve combat is – in my opinion – the most important decision a wargames designer can make. Get this wrong, and however good the rest of the rules mechanisms used may be, the design will fail.

The problem is that combat is not an easily quantifiable event because it ultimately depends upon human interaction, a notoriously difficult thing to model. There are people who have spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to achieve this seemingly impossible goal, and the writings of one of these – Colonel Trevor Dupuy – occupy a place on the top shelf of my bookcase of wargaming books.

The three main books he wrote about combat are:

• NUMBERS, PREDICTIONS AND WAR: USING HISTORY TO EVALUATE COMBAT FACTORS AND PREDICT THE OUTCOME OF BATTLES (1979)
• UNDERSTANDING WAR – HISTORY AND THEORY OF COMBAT (1987 & 1992)
• ATTRITION: FORECASTING BATTLE CASULATIES AND EQUIPMENT LOSSES IN MODERN WAR (1990)

In the first of these books Colonel Dupuy explains how he and his colleagues at HERO (the Historical Evaluation and Research Organisation) developed the concept of QJMA – the Quantified Judgement Method of Analysis of Historical Combat data. They analysed the data relating to over one hundred battles and developed a very long and complicated formula that produced results that, when the specific data was added, accorded with the actual results of the battles they had studied. They appeared to have identified a mathematical model that could be used to predict the outcomes of battles.

The second book takes the theory forward, and compares the methodology – now referred to as QJM (the Quantified Judgement Method) – with other theories of combat.

The book begins with what Dupuy termed ‘The Timeless Verities of Combat’. These are:

• Offensive action is essential to positive combat results.
• Defensive strength is greater than offensive strength.
• Defensive posture is necessary when successful offense is impossible.
• Flank or rear attack is more likely to succeed than frontal attack.
• Initiative permits application of preponderant combat power.
• Defenders’ chances of success are directly proportional to fortification strength.
• An attacker willing to pay the price can always penetrate the strongest defences.
• Successful defence requires depth and reserves.
• Superior combat power always wins.
• Surprise substantially enhances combat power.
• Firepower kills, disrupts, suppresses, and causes dispersion.
• Combat activities are always slower, less productive, and less efficient than anticipated.
• Combat is too complex to be described in a single, simple aphorism.

The book also describes the QJM Combat Power Formula in considerable detail, although the description begins with Clausewitz’s Law of Numbers and shows how QJM relates to it. Put simply they both boil down to:

P = N x V x Qwhere:

P = Power (In QJM this is termed Combat Power)

N = Numbers (In QJM this is termed Force Strength)

V = Variables (In QJM this is termed Environmental and Operational Factors)

Q = Quality (In QJM this is termed Combat Effectiveness Value)

By comparing the Combat Power of both sides in a combat, the results of that combat should be predictable. It is thinking behind this basic formula that I will be using to develop my own combat resolution system.

It is worth noting that the Combat Effectiveness Value used in Colonel Dupuy’s work seems to show that certain nations produce more effective soldiers than others. For example, in his third book the use of QJM demonstrates that during World Wars I and II German soldiers were 1.2 times more effective that British, French, and American soldiers, and up to 3.0 times more effective than Russians. It also shows that during the Arab-Israeli Wars Israeli soldiers were at least 2.0 times more effective than their Arab opponents. Some commentators have cited this as showing that Colonel Dupuy can only get his formulae to work by ‘fudging’ the data; others have sought to examine how and why this apparent ‘national superiority’ has come about.

Applying the concepts behind QJM

Taking concepts behind the QJM Combat Power Formula as a starting point I have chosen a very simple method of combat resolution that combines the following factors:

• A numerical value for each type of unit based upon its training, equipment, and experience.
• Numerical values that represent transient effects on combat (e.g. terrain, surprise).
• An element of chance (i.e. the use of a dice).

When the Combat Power of both sides are compared, a result is generated using a system that is not very dissimilar for that used in Phil Barker’s DBA and TABLE TOP BATTLES by Mike and Joyce Smith.

The numerical values I have chosen for each type of unit are:

1: Basic combat value for all units
+0: Poor quality General*
+0: Poor quality infantry and cavalry
+1: Average quality General*
+1: Conscript infantry and cavalry
+1: Transport
+2: Good quality General*
+2: Equipped with light AFVs
+2: Regular infantry and cavalry
+2: Artillery
+3: Exceptional quality General*
+3: Equipped with medium AFVs
+3: Elite infantry
+4: Equipped with heavy AFVs
+5: Equipped with very heavy AFVs

Note: The starred (*) additons to the basic combat value only apply to command units.

Therefore an inexperienced (conscript) Russian Rifle Regiment will have a combat value of 2 (basic combat value plus 1 for being conscript infantry) whereas an elite German Panzer Grenadier unit will have a combat value of 4 (basic combat value plus 4 for being elite infantry).

The numerical values I have chosen for each transient effect on combat are:

• Add the command stand’s combat value: If a unit’s division, corps, and/or army command stand is in an adjacent hex, add the command stand’s combat value.
• +1: If the firing stand is artillery firing at a target that is in an adjacent square.
• -2: If the target stand is in defence works, inside a wood, or inside a built-up area.

The element of chance is represent by the use of:

• A D12 (for the Germans).
• A D10 (for the Russians and Axis allies).

The choice of different dice has been made in light of the work done by Colonel Dupuy to show that the soldiers of different nations have different Combat Effectiveness Values.

Resolving Combat

When combat occurs, both sides take the combat value of the unit that is involved in the combat, add the numerical values of any relevant transient effects and the dice score that they throw, and this give that unit’s Combat Power. These are then compared, and a result is generated.

The combat results are:

• If the attacking unit’s Combat Power is lower than the defending unit’s Combat Power, the combat has been ineffective.
• If the attacking unit’s and defending unit’s Combat Powers are equal, each unit throws a D12 or D10 (as appropriate) and the unit with the lowest score stays in its current position and reduces its combat value by one.
• If the defending unit’s Combat Power is less than the attacking unit’s Combat Power but more than half of the attacking unit’s Combat Power, the defending unit stays in its current position and reduces its combat value by one.
• If the defending unit’s Combat Power is less than half of the attacking unit’s Combat Power, but more than a quarter of the attacking unit's Combat Power, the defending unit reduces its combat value by two.
• If the defending unit’s Combat Power is less than a quarter of the attacking unit’s Combat Power, the defending unit reduces its combat value by two and withdraws until it is at least one hex away from an enemy unit.

Note: If a unit has to withdraw more than four hexes to comply with a combat result or it is prevented from doing so because of an obstacle or enemy unit, the withdrawing unit is deemed to have been destroyed.

The combat resolution system will need vigorous play-testing, but as it is built upon a reasonably sound body of theory and previous experience I hope that any modifications will be minimal.

Operational-level Wargame Design 4: Why activation cards?

Other than in a real-time computer simulation, it is almost impossible to design a wargame without having to make compromises as to who can do what and when they can do it.

Basically it comes down to a choice between two alternatives:

• 'I go; you go';
• Simultaneous movement.

Over many years I have played – and designed – wargames using both of these alternatives, but I have never felt satisfied with the results.

If the ‘I go; you go’ method is used, it can lead to one side standing around waiting for their turn whilst the other side moves it forces and initiates combat; this is both boring and not conducive to ‘fun’ wargaming. If the ‘simultaneous movement’ method is used, it is crucial that players are very specific in what they intend to happen when they write down their orders, otherwise games seem to dissolve into series of acrimonious arguments. In addition, neither system works if – like me – a lot of your wargaming is done solo.

The first alternative method to these two mainstays of wargames design that I ever incorporated into one of my own designs was copied from an idea in John Sandars’ AN INTRODUCTION TO WARGAMING (1975). He used a numbered counter system to determine the order in which units were activated during each turn. At the beginning of each turn the players picked the same number of numbered counters out of a bag as units they commanded. They then allocated a numbered counter to each unit in the order that they wanted that unit to be activated during the turn. When the turn began, the unit with number ‘1’ was activated, then ‘2’, and so on until each unit had been activated. The counters were then collected back in and put back into the bag for the next turn.

This modified version of ‘I go; you go’ seemed to overcome some of the problems generated by the conventional ‘I go; you go’ system, although lovers of ‘simultaneous movement’ still objected to it. Furthermore, unless the numbered counters were picked out of the bag ‘blind’ and allocated to units unseen, it did not work well in solo games.

The next method I used was developed from ideas that I first read in Larry Brom’s THE SWORD AND THE FLAME. This method used a pack of playing cards where one side was allocated ‘red’ and the other ‘black’. The playing cards were shuffled, and when a ‘red’ card was turned over, the ‘red’ side could activate a unit, and when a ‘black’ card was turned over, the ‘black’ side could activate a unit. This continued until all the playing cards had been turned over, at which point they were reshuffled and play continued.

This ‘continuous movement’ system did seem to work well with both face-to-face and solo wargames, and I used it in BUNDOCK AND BAYONETS and RESTLESS NATIVES. However some players objected to the idea that one unit could – if the turn of cards allowed it – be activated several times one after another.

Richard Brooks and Ian Drury (both of whom are fellow members of Wargame Developments) then introduced me to a different method of using playing cards to determine the order in which units were activated. They used the smallest playing cards that are generally available (they are specially produced for the card game ‘Solitaire’). The cards were shuffled and then dealt face down to each unit on the table, and once dealt, they were turned over. The unit that had been dealt the playing card with the lowest value was activated first, then the unit with the next lowest value playing card, and so on until all the units that could be activated had been activated. This system worked extremely well, and gave the feeling of ‘continuous movement’ without allowing a unit to be activated time and time again before their opponents could respond. I was so impressed with what became a standard element of all the RED SQUARE wargame designs that I have used it in almost all my wargame designs of recent years, including RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES and REDCOATS AND NATIVES.

My only objection to this system is an aesthetic one; I don’t like having the playing cards on the tabletop. I therefore looked around for an alternative that would do the same job but would not require me to deal playing cards onto the tabletop. After a couple of false starts I came up with the concept of activation cards.

Each unit has an activation card that bears its name. These are printed onto business cards using an inkjet printer, and are then laminated. When a unit is deployed onto the tabletop, its activation card is added to the pack of activation cards that will be used for this wargame. The pack is shuffled, and when a unit’s activation card is turned over, that unit is activated.

It is worth noting that a variation of this system was used for SOLFERINO IN THIRTY MINUTES, the main difference being that instead of unit activation cards, there were commander activation cards.

This system has worked well in play-tests, and it is the system that I will be using in my operational-level wargame design.

Operational-level Wargame Design 3: Why models and figures and not counters?

I suppose the fact that I have already chosen to use Hexon II hexed terrain makes the choice of models and figures rather than counters somewhat inevitable, but there are good reasons why I prefer the former to the latter. These are:

• I prefer the aesthetic appeal of models and figures. I happen to think that part of the enjoyment – fun if you will – of wargaming is the ‘look’. I do not subscribe to the notion of a ‘moving diorama’ often seen at wargames show (and often not doing much moving either!) but I do like to see painted models and figures on nice terrain.
• I find it easier to take in the whole ‘picture’ of what is going on if I use models and figures rather than counters. I can recognise which unit is which if I use models and figures to represent them, whereas I have to examine each counter quite closely to determine one for another. At my age this is quite an important consideration!
• I have an emotional attachment to 1:87th, 1:76th, and 1:72nd scale models and 20mm scale figures. My first proper wargames figures and models were made by AIRFIX and ROCO, and using the modern equivalents helps me to recapture just a little of my youth – and it works better than any rejuvenating cream or hair ‘colourizer’ because the good feeling it engenders lasts a long time!

The first ROCO MINITANKS that I bought were five Tiger IIs, one of which had the Porsche turret. I bought them in Woolworths(!) in Southend-on-Sea.

Counters have their place in wargaming – and I am thinking of using them in my game design to mark the possible positions of unreconnoitred units – and it would have been very easy to make them. For example, Tom Mouat’s MapSymbs website has all sorts of useful fonts that allow you to make your own very professional-looking counters.

In addition, they are very cheap and quick to make as well as taking up a lot less storage space. Counters do not, however, ‘tick my boxes’, and so I will be using models and figures.

A pleasant interruption

Over the years I have written numerous sets of wargames rules, some of which have been more successful than others. Many of these are available via the Internet, and as a result I sometimes get asked for clarifications about what a rules means or requests for scenarios. Whilst it is flattering to get such requests, they sometimes come at inconvenient times and can take several hours to answer.

Yesterday I was asked if I could write some additional rules for RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES – TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED so that they covered airborne operations. Because the request came from a friend, I was only too happy to do so then and there.

The first thing that I did was to read through the rules as they stood to see if there were any problems with modifying the existing mechanisms to accommodate the inclusion of airborne operations … and there were none. This read through also gave me ideas as to how modify some of the existing rule mechanisms so that I could incorporate the use of both gliders and paratroops.

I jotted down my ideas, and then set up a short scenario to test the mechanisms I was considering using. Because it was a very hurried play-test, I used the terrain board, figures and vehicles from my copy of MEMOIR ’44 rather than setting up some Hexon II terrain and getting out some World War II figures. This accounts for the absence of pictures to illustrate this blog entry. I ran the scenario several times to see if the mechanisms worked … and they did. I then word processed some additional sections to the end of RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES – TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED and fired them off to a very satisfied friend.

Although this meant that I ‘lost’ some time that I had intended to use yesterday to continue developing my operational-level wargames rules, it was a very pleasant interruption and the results were very worthwhile.

Operational-level Wargame Design 2: Why regimental-sized playing pieces?

The decision to use regimental-sized playing pieces stems from the fact the commanders of Russian Fronts or German Armies – the role I want each player to take in my new operational-level wargame – will need to know where their individual divisions are and what they are doing.

I could, therefore, represent each division as a single playing piece, but this would not allow me to model the particular strength, organisation, and posture (e.g. defending, attacking, moving) of each division very easily. Because I want to represent the component parts of each division on the tabletop, the obvious choice was, therefore, to use regimental-sized playing pieces.

Operational-level Wargame Design 1: Why hexes? – A few extra comments

Having re-read what I wrote in my last blog entry, I realised that I had not made it clear how close the decision between using squares and hexes was.

I do like squares, and have used them before in game designs, most notably when I wrote SCWARES (Simple Colonial Wargames Rules). My discovery in the National Archives of the rules for the 1956 BRITSH ARMY WAR GAME – which are now available from John Curry – further reinforced my belief in the use of squares, as did my purchase last year of TABLE TOP BATTLES by Mike and Joyce Smith.

Had I not owned a large amount of Hexon II terrain, I would have gone for squares, but the thought of having to start building and storing a second terrain system from scratch – and my knowledge of what my wife would have said about it – made the pragmatic choice to go with hexes inevitable.

Mind you, if I ever have enough time and storage space …

Operational-level Wargame Design 1: Why hexes?

The first thing I did when I began thinking about the design of my operational-level wargame rules was to decide that I would use hexes.

Why?

Using gridded terrain (squares, offset squares, or hexes) has now become a ‘given’ with all my wargame designs over recent years because it speeds up play. I got so fed up with having to measure everything and – more frustratingly – waiting for other people to measure everything, that I lost interest in playing wargames except with a very select group of friends. In fact, to all intents and purposes, I became a solo wargamer except at COW (the Conference of Wargamers), visits to other wargamer’s homes (and vice versa), and the occasional wargames show.

Then there were inevitable arguments about whether or not this unit or that unit was or was not in range. Gridded terrain ended all of these arguments. If a unit was in particular squares or hexes, it was in range; if not, it was out of range.

So why did I choose to use hexes rather than squares?

Well each type of gridded terrain has – in my opinion – their advantages and disadvantages, and these are summarised below.

Squares

Advantages

• They are simple to mark out on a tabletop battlefield.
• They allow movement in eight directions.
• Terrain maps are usually marked with a squared gird, thus making it much easier to translate real terrain onto the tabletop battlefield.
• Buildings look ‘right’ on squared terrain.
• They seem to work very well when re-fighting battles where linear formations were used (i.e. up until the early part of the 20th century).

Disadvantages

• Movement from one square to another diagonally is further than it is orthogonally.
• Trying to work out how far weapons can fire can be difficult (i.e. should weapon ranges be measured orthogonally, diagonally, or a mixture of both?).

Offset squares

Advantages

• They are simple to mark out on a tabletop battlefield.
• They allow movement in six directions.
• Buildings look ‘right’ on squared terrain.
• They seem to work very well when re-fighting battles where linear formations were used (i.e. up until the early part of the 20th century).

Disadvantages

• Whilst they look right when the battle is being fought with the main grid lines running left to right, it somehow looks wrong when they run top to bottom.
• Trying to work out how far weapons can fire can be difficult (i.e. should weapon ranges be measured orthogonally, diagonally, or a mixture of both?).

Hexes

Advantages

• They allow movement in six directions.
• Movement and weapon ranges are easily measured.
• They seem to work very well when re-fighting battles where non-linear formations were used (i.e. from the early part of the 20th century onwards).

Disadvantages

• They are difficult to mark out on a tabletop battlefield. Unless one has the patience of a saint and the skill of a draughtsman, one has to rely on using ready-made hexes (e.g. Hexon II) or ready printed hexes (e.g. Chessex game mats).
• Unless specially drawn (or ‘borrowed’ from a boardgame) terrain maps are not usually marked with a hexed gird, thus making it difficult to translate real terrain onto the tabletop battlefield.
• Buildings often look ‘wrong’ on hexes terrain.

I would like to say that after weighing up the pros and cons of the options available I chose hexes because they were the best … which is partly true, particularly as my previous experience with using them for mid-20th century wargames have been successful … however, the final deciding factor is that I have loads of Hexon II terrain – as do most of my friends – and not to use it would be very silly … so hexes it is!

5,000 hits! Thank you!

I checked my blog this morning, and realised that overnight it had received its 5,000th 'hit' since I added a hit counter in February. Until then I had not actually looked at the statistics in any depth, and I was surprised to see that on one day last month my blog had had 144 'hits', and that the daily average in over 50.

So it's a big 'thank you' to everyone who has read my blog so far, and an even bigger 'thank you' to everyone who has commented on what I have written. Even if no one read it, I would still write my blog ... but knowing that there are people out there who want to share my random ramblings is an even greater encouragement for me to continue blogging.