Category Archives: Strategy

Team Building Cooperative Board Game

Posted on by

Forest of the Impaled is one of the best team building cooperative board games I’ve ever seen.  Six Muslim players must cooperate as a team to defeat the historical Vlad Dracula.  The trick is:  They Can’t Talk!  Actually, the rules say they can’t “communicate” in any way, to include pointing, eye rolling, groaning, banging your head against the wall, etc. 

“This game is about teamwork, leadership and communication.” 

This game plays fast (1-2 hours) and is easy to learn and teach.  It has some fun stuff in it:  Castles, secret mountain passes, hideouts and impalements but really this game is about teamwork, leadership and communication.

One player is Dracula.  Up to 6 other players must cooperate as a team of Muslim invaders to conquer Romania.  This asymmetrical situation immediately raises a very interesting question.  What is better?  The efficiency of a small 1 person, autocratic, dictatorship?  Or a very large, slow moving team?  Are more minds better than one?  What are their advantages and disadvantages?  With practice, a good team can overcome their weakness and maximize their power of synergy.  How do you do this?  Through leadership, planning and communication.

The Muslim players can talk and plan freely before the game starts.  After it begins, players can only talk briefly with other players while they are in the same spot on the board.  So what happens when the plan gets disrupted? 

Let’s say 3 players are supposed to move up the middle and take on Dracula.  I’m supposed to take my army around the west to capture castles and drive deep into Transylvania.  I shouldn’t be facing any serious resistance.  That’s the plan.

On turn 1, Dracula unexpectedly races across the board to the west and bam, there he is right in front of me.  Now what?  We can’t talk.  What should I do?  What should the 3 players in the middle of the board do?  We need to adapt but how? 

I could march over to talk to them but that will waste a couple of turns to get there and then back.  There usually isn’t time for that.  The Muslims only have 4 turns to defeat Dracula!

Painful.  Agonizing.  Interesting.  Fun.  Also the same types of situations we run into at work.  Well, maybe not impalements and castle sieges but things like:

  • How to plan for the unexpected.
  • How to react to the unexpected when you are stopped in the field  and not able to consult your team or management.  -or maybe how do you react on the spot BEFORE you can consult your team and management.  
  • How important it is for everybody at your organization to know the strategic goal and keep it in mind.  
  • How will your individual decisions and actions affect that plan and others on your team. 

Just to name a few.  

This game brings out the very best in team building, cooperative board games. 

Learn More  

Managing Combat at Gettysburg

Posted on by

In most wargames, you can’t manage the combat result.   After you move and commit to an attack, your decisions are over.  There is nothing left to do but roll the dice and pray for a good result.  In Pub Battles, you can actually manage the fight, blow by blow as it unfolds.  There are many decisions left to make.  How exactly do you want to fight this engagement?

Often new players to Pub Battles will just stay every round of combat until contact is broken.  Playing this way leaves everything up to fate.  By carefully managing your combats, you can shift the strategic edge in your favor to win!  Let’s look as some examples:

This is the opening of Gettysburg.  (just making this up, not the actual OB)  It is early in the day.  We are defending McPherson’s Ridge.

The Confederates have advanced to attack Robinson’s Division.  All movement is finished and we are resolving combat at the end of the turn.

If you’re not familiar with Pub Battles, dice normally score hits on 4-6.  (only 5-6 if the defender is under cover)  On the first hit, your unit flips to its Spent side:  label up.  The second hit will force your unit to retreat.  A third hit will destroy it. 

 

Round 1:   The Confederates score 1 hit flipping Robinson.  Heth’s lead wing takes 2 hits.  He flips and retreats but his supporting wing advances to press the attack.

Now it’s decision time.  At the end of the round, we have the option to voluntarily retreat and break off this engagement.  Do you retreat and fall back, or stand and fight another round?

We have the advantage of the Hill.  That gives Robinson cover.  The Confederates only hit us on 5 or 6.  We hit them on 4-6.  Both sides roll 3 dice.  On average they will cause 2/3 of a hit.  We will cause 1 1/2 hits to them.  We should stay right?

Well, even though the odds are in our favor, with a little luck the Confederates could still easily score 2 hits on us.  Two more hits would destroy Robinson.  Is that a big deal?  It’s just 1 block.

Not normally but consider the strategic situation here.  This is the opening of Gettysburg.  There are very few units on the board, especially Federal ones.  Every single piece has an exaggerated importance now.  If we lose Robinson on the opening attack, first thing in the morning, we’ll be critically short that block for the rest of the day.  The impact of losing him is magnified.

If Robinson get’s destroyed defending Cemetery Hill on Day 2, no big deal.  Most of the Army of the Potomac will be here tomorrow.  We’ll have plenty of blocks to spare then.  Right now we only have a few blocks to delay and contain the waves of rebels pouring onto the field.

Given this, I’m feeling more cautious.  I’d rather not risk it.  We have ground and time to give up.  We don’t have many men to lose right now.  We can play cautious.  We decide to voluntarily retreat:

Heth takes McPherson’s Ridge.  Fine.  Next turn we can Rally Robinson back to upright Fresh status, fall back, reform our lines and continue the good fight.

 

What could have happened if we stayed?  Heth most certainly would have stayed and pressed the attack.  There is no good reason for him to back down here.  There are many possible outcomes.  Here are a few likely ones:

1         -We score 2 hits, Confederates score none.  We hold the ridge and successfully delay the Rebs for a couple of turns while they Rally and prepare to attack again.

 

2          -We score 1 hit, Confederates score 1 hit.  We are shoved back anyways but we flipped another Reb unit costing them more time.

 

 

3         –We score 1 hit, Confederates score 2 hits.  Robinson is destroyed!  The ridge is lost and we are going to be hard pressed to slow the Confederate advance on Cemetery Hill.  Looks ugly doesn’t it?

 

Three easily possible outcomes.  Notice that WE have the power to take the 3rd, worst option completely off the table.  We just need to exercise a little discretion and voluntarily retreat.

 

Let’s turn the table around and look at this from the Confederate perspective.  Let’s say the Feds recklessly decided to stand with Robinson and they got lucky.  He survived, held the Ridge and scored 2 hits on Heth, forcing him back:

We move on to the next turn now.  We are the Confederate player.  Federals have already moved and are incapable of bringing up any support for Robinson.  Robinson did Rally, but our artillery bombardment flipped him back to Spent status:

We have no other Fresh units in position to attack this turn.  We have 2 basic choices:

  1. Delay our advance this turn and Rally Heth to Fresh so that we can attack next turn at full strength:

  1. Strike now! Advance to attack Robinson again while Spent:

Option 2 is risky.  Is it worth the risk?

Odds are very good that we would see a unit destroyed.   Odds are also very good that we would take the Ridge and destroy Robinson as well!

As the Confederates, we do have units to lose now.  Time is much more important.  This is a close call.  I could argue either way on this.  Personally, I’d go for the risky option 2:  Attack now while Spent.

Notice all the decisions here.  Many things in our control.  Many ways to fight this out.

 

 

Why Napoleon Lost Waterloo

Posted on by

Many blame Grouchy for Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo? Because of these orders.

Lessons from Kriegsspiel

A very big question.  Over the course of designing Pub Battles:  Waterloo, several other musket era games and playing Kriegsspiel, I am gaining a deeper insight and understanding of this subject.  Let’s look at some examples:

Kriegsspiel Antietam

Emily orders Gabe to advance SE down road X to attack the enemy.  The problem was road X doesn’t go SE it goes SW.  What should Gabe do?  Should he travel SW down road X and attack nobody  OR should he travel SE down road Y and attack the enemy?  What did Emily mean?

Marengo

Napoleon orders Desaix to march south to recon enemy positions and block off any routes of escape.  The troops form up.  They are ready to begin marching south when they suddenly hear cannon fire to the north:  where Napoleon had the Austrians under siege in Alexandrie.  What should Desaix do?  Should he obey orders and start his march to the south?  Should he directly disobey these orders and march north to the sound of the guns in case Napoleon needs his support? 

June 17th, Waterloo

After the battle at Ligny, Napoleon takes the main army up the Brussels road to pursue Wellington and bring him to battle.  He detaches Grouchy with 2 Corps.  Grouchy’s orders are to march east to Gembloux and pursue the Prussians.  The problem is that the Prussians march north.  What should Grouchy do?  Should he march north in pursuit of the Prussians or march east to Gembloux?

June 18th, Waterloo

The Prussians seem to be concentrating at Wavre.  Napoleon orders Grouchy to attack the Prussians at Wavre so that they cannot join Wellington at Waterloo while he attacks them.  As Grouchy begins to march to Wavre, he hears heavy cannon fire starting at Waterloo.  What should he do?  March to Wavre and attack the Prussians as ordered or disobey his direct orders and march to the sound of the guns to support Napoleon? 

Are you noticing a trend here? 

Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo?  As wargamers we tend to compare combat & movement factors, leader ratings and hex terrain.  As miniature players we tend to focus more on comparing individual unit weapon performance and morale ratings.  We can argue and quibble over details like this till the cows come home.  From my experience in Kriegsspiel, I’d say all of this is trumped by orders and communication.  Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo?  Because of his orders to Grouchy.  What will your people do when given orders with conflicting goals?  God only knows. 

What did Gabe do at Antietam?  He surmised that Emily got her directions messed up.  He disobeyed orders.  He immediately attacked by marching down the wrong road to attack the enemy in the wrong direction.  He sent Emily a snarky message back telling her what he was doing and that she needs to learn how to read a compass!

I discussed this game with Gabe last week.  (Amazing because we played this game several years ago but we still talk about it and remember it vividly.)  His response to this problem in the game was pretty bold.  I asked him to consider the ramifications in real life, a real war, thousands of men’s lives at stake.  I pointed out that his military career and retirement were at stake.  His chances for promotion later.  Possibly a courts-martial and firing squad if he disobeyed orders.  He went down the wrong road in the wrong direction.  This is disobeying direct written orders during a battle with the enemy.  Would he still have responded this way in a real war?

After consideration, Gabe agreed that his response would have been very different in a real war.  Instead, he would have sat and did nothing while he wrote back and respectfully requested confirmation of the confusing orders.  His response:  delay and inaction.  Sounds about right.

What did Grouchy do on the 17th of June?  Put yourself in Grouchy’s shoes.  Napoleon, the greatest military mind of the age, orders you to march to Gembloux.  If the Emperor of France orders you to march to Gembloux, you march to Gembloux.  How could you do anything else?  As it turns out, this march delayed Grouchy’s column which ultimately led to Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.  It put Grouchy a half day’s march behind the Prussians.  Imagine yourself in Grouchy’s command.  You read the order from Napoleon, wad it up into a ball and throw it away saying:  “Nah, I think I’ll go north instead.  He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  I don’t think the Prussians are going to go that way.”  Yeah, that’s not going to happen. 

The same situation on the 18th of June.  When the guns opened up at Waterloo, Soult and Gérard urged Grouchy to march to the Emperor’s aid.  Grouchy refused.  Why?  His orders were to march to Wavre!  We have the benefit of hindsight now.  Put yourself in Grouchy’s shoes then.  March to Waterloo?  Why?  So the Emperor can have you shot for disobeying direct orders?  Grouchy’s attack at Wavre was supposed to tie down the Prussians and keep them from marching to Waterloo.  That was the Emperor’s plan.  What if disobeying orders and marching to Waterloo is what causes Napoleon to lose?  Now Napoleon lost the battle because you disobeyed direct orders!  That won’t be pretty.  At least by marching to Wavre, Grouchy had the defense of saying:  “But that’s what he told me to do!”

Ok, now let’s go back to Marengo.  What did Desaix do?  He disobeyed orders, turned and marched immediately to the sound of the guns.  Why the difference here?  First of all, Napoleon was still early in his career.  He hadn’t quite reached the status of “Military Genius of Our Age” yet.  It was easier to take a gamble and risk with a young, upstart revolutionary general. 

There was also a big difference in priorities.  Desaix was just on a scouting / recon mission.  Not a huge deal.  He could always return the next day to scout and recon.  An unexpected, critical battle breaking out that could decide the entire campaign is a much bigger priority.  Better to get there just in case…  There isn’t much to lose. 

Grouchy faced a much more difficult dilemma.  “Pursue the Prussians” is a much higher priority than scout, recon and forage.  On the 18th, Grouchy’s orders were to “Attack the Prussians” to prevent them from joining Wellington.  This is a mission critical priority.

“March to Gembloux and pursue the Prussians.”  The Prussians march north.  Gembloux is east. 

“March to Wavre and attack the Prussians.”  Wavre is north.  The Prussians march west. 

Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo?  Because of these orders.  Many blame Grouchy for Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.  Ultimately, a leader is responsible for his command and the performance of his subordinates.  These are elementary mistakes that you see immediately in Kriegsspiel.

Notice how these orders put the subordinates into a bind.  Do Y and X.  What if that becomes impossible?  Why put all this stress on your people?  You are setting yourself up for failure.  How can you avoid conundrums like this in the first place?

George Patton used to say:  Tell people ‘what’ to do, not ‘how’ to do it.  How would Patton have written these orders?

Instead of:

“March to Gembloux and pursue the Prussians.”

Patton would write:

“Pursue the Prussians.”

Instead of:

“March to Wavre and attack the Prussians.”

Patton would write:

“Pursue the Prussians and Prevent them from joining Wellington.”

-except there would probably be a lot more swear words thrown in there. 

Good orders focus on:  What to Do.  They focus on the end result or goal of the mission.  Where is Grouchy?  I don’t know where the *^%$#&@ he is but wherever he is, we can be sure that he is all over the Prussians like %&$#*@#$%^!

Napoleon does deserve a little slack.  He was suffering from very heavy health issues during the campaign.  He was not at his best.  He certainly wouldn’t have gotten as far as he did if he wasn’t doing something right. 

We can learn a lot from Napoleon, Waterloo and Patton.  We can learn important things from wargaming but the most important lessons to be learned come from Kriegsspiel.     

Dracula Battle Decisions

Posted on by

Resolving Battles in Dracula is tense and involves a number of interesting decisions.  Deploying your forces to fight can have a big impact on how the battle develops.  Yes, there is luck involved but you can manage much of that with how you develop your forces on the battle field.  Let’s look at an example.

Dracula has attacked into Pitesti.  Dracula has 8 Troops.  The Muslims only have 5.  Dracula can group his army by 4’s.  The Muslims can only group by 2s.   

 

 

Before the opposing armies can actually fight, first they must find each other by Searching.  Each Group rolls 1 die.  They must roll their leaders rating or lower:  Dracula 4, Muslims 2

 

Dracula rolls:  2, 4.  Both Groups made it to the battle!

Muslims roll:  2, 3, 5.  Wouldn’t you know it?  Only the smallest Group succeeds.  The other two are lost this round and can’t fire unless fired upon. 

 

The Dracula player now has some interesting choices to make.  He has to declare which Groups he is firing at.  Dracula can mix up his troops however he wants.  They don’t have to stay in 2 Groups of 4.  Dracula could just fire all 8 at the 1 active defender.  The problem with this is that any excess hits are wasted.  They only apply to the Group he declared.  Out of 8 rolls, he should get 4 hits on average.  So with average luck, Dracula will kill the 1 defender and then waste 3 good hits. 

 

A better deployment for Dracula would be something like this:

 

 

3 Troops fire at the 1 Muslim.  This should be enough to kill him.  The remaining 5 Troops attack one of the lost Muslim Groups. 

Let’s say those first 3 Troops score 3 hits on the 1 Muslim defender.  The first 1 kills the Muslim piece, the other 2 are wasted.  You can’t apply them to other defenders.   

Next, let’s say the Group of 5 score 4 hits.  The first 2 hits kill the defenders, the other 2 are wasted.

This arrangement was better but still liable to generate wasted hits.  Ok, then the best thing to do is ensure that no hits are wasted?  Not necessarily.  If you push too hard, you could get yourself into trouble.  Check out this is a risky attack:

 

 

Here we have 2 Troops attacking the 1 Muslim Group.  On average, they ‘should’ kill the defender.  No guarantees.  Next we have 2 Groups of 3 attacking both lost Muslim Groups.  If Dracula gets a little lucky, this could be devastating.  The Muslims could be virtually wiped out in 1 round of combat with no chance to return fire.

 

It could also go very badly for Dracula.  Let’s say the 2 vs 1 both score 1 hit.  The middle Dracula group misses.  The third only scores 1 hit.  Then the ‘lost’ Muslims return fire with 3 hits.  Then Dracula would be going into a second round of combat for the battle looking like this:

 

 

Now it’s pretty much an even up fight.  This is a total disaster for Dracula.  Starting the game outnumbered 6:1, Dracula can’t afford to fight even up battles like this. 

Just to clarify, what if ALL groups on both sides passed their search rolls and were active to fight on round 1?  

That is just a straight up fight.  There are no decisions to make.  Dracula would roll 8 dice, the Muslims roll 5, you count hits and remove losses.  

The decisions on declaring attacks come up when the enemy has Groups that are lost:  failed their search roll and are Inactive.   

Supremacy Alliances

Posted on by

Sure, I’ll be your Ally….    Why not?  What is there to lose?  What is there to gain?  I can still attack you anytime I want.  Players always talk about being Allies but it doesn’t really mean anything.

This is a problem that plagues most multiplayer games.  Players can say anything.  What will they do?  If they can betray you and attack you at anytime, what good is an Alliance?   

What if it did mean something?  What if they really couldn’t attack you?  It was in the rules!  What if you also really got something out of it?  You could combine forces and coordinate together for attacks.  That would make an Alliance truly powerful.  

We have developed some new optional rules that you can add to Supremacy.  They do exactly that.  They put real meat into an Alliance.  They can’t just betray you.  It is against the rules.  Are they still willing declare an Alliance?  This completely changes the game. 

Where can you get these new Optional Rules?  They are now included in our Diplomatic Kit.   

IF

You were a Supremacy Backer

OR

Previously purchased the Diplomatic Kit,

Send us an email and we will send you a copy of these new Optional Alliance Rules for FREE!!

 

 

Command & Control at Antietam

Posted on by

How does Command & Control work at Antietam?  Instead of explaining the rules, here is a good example to show you:

Burnside attacked across the bridge in turn 2.  He was driven back but Jones is now spent.  We are at the beginning of turn 3. 

In this case, Longstreet and Burnside both want to move first.  Half of Burnside’s Corps is spent but he still has 2 fresh units to attack with.  If Longstreet can move first, he can rally Jones BEFORE Burnside can strike. 

If Burnside attacks first, Jones can’t rally.  He must either fight against 2 fresh divisions (good chance of dying) OR fall back.  Falling back is sensible but you would also be giving up your good defensible terrain and allowing the Potomac a bridge head across the Antietam.  –A very bad position to be in on turn 3!

Should you roll now to move first?  No.  This will waste your HQ roll.  Better to sit tight and see what happens:

Wouldn’t you know it, Burnside gets picked to move first.  Disaster for the Rebs?  Not yet…..  This is where the HQs come in.  Longstreet can roll to jump ahead of Burnside.  He needs a 1-4.

Wouldn’t you know it, he fails.  It happens.  Now what?  Game over?  Nope.  Keep your shirt on.  That’s why you keep your Army HQ in range of your Corps HQs.  Lee can do this easily at Antietam.  He has relatively short interior lines.  He also only has 2 Corps to deal with. 

Lee now rolls to Jump Longstreet ahead. 

Success!  Now Longstreet will move first, THEN Burnside.  

Ok, disaster averted?  Not so fast.  The Potomac command hasn’t weighed in yet.  Their HQs can roll to alter this too.  It is harder for the Federals in this battle.  They need 1-3. 

Burnside swings a misses.  Good.  Are we in the clear now?  Nope.  McClellan can roll just like Lee did for Longstreet.  Well, not just like Lee.  He needs a 1-3.

He pulls it off! 

Note what makes this roll possible is that McClellan is both Fresh and in range of Burnside.  It is much harder for McClellan to pull this off than Lee.  McClellan has 6 Corps on the board now with a 7th arriving later.  They are also scattered along a much bigger frontage.  McClellan is able to roll for Burnside now because he is nearby.

Also note the opportunity cost of this.  Staying close to Burnside, means that McClellan is out of range to influence the whole right side of the field.   

Ok, so now where are we?  Can’t we just have Lee roll again?  No.  Only Fresh HQs can roll.  Rolling causes your HQ to become Spent.  It will become Fresh again at the beginning of next turn but that won’t help you now. 

So does that mean we are done and the poor Rebs are about to have a bad day?  Not quite.  There is still 1 more trick up our sleeve.  It just so happens that DH Hill is east of Shaprsburg.  He is in range to help Jones.  The key thing here is that DH Hill isn’t in Longstreet’s Corps.  He is in Jackson’s!  Jackson’s HQ is still Fresh, so he can roll and he does:

Success!  This allows Jackson’s II Corps to jump ahead of Burnside.

What will this do for us?  Jones will still move after Burnside but this allows us to move DH Hill forward to block for Jones.

Next Burnside will move.  He will attack with his lead units and rally his reserve. 

Finally Longstreet moves.  Since he’s not in contact, Jones can now rally.  The tables are turned!  Instead of attacking 1 spent defender, Burnside runs into to Fresh Divisions, across a bridge, on top of a hill.  Not good for the poor Federals. 

Alright you say, clever trick.  What about the Potomac?  Can’t they just do the same thing?  Can’t they just roll in another Corps to jump ahead of Jackson?  Theoretically, yes they could.  The problem is in this case, there are no other Federal Corps in range that could get there.  I know, it’s that darned interior lines advantage again! 

One more thing to note here.  What about the opportunity cost for Jackson?  Yes, this was a clever little trick.  The ANV has used their superior C&C to out position the Potomac once again but this does not come without a cost.  Jackson is now spent and this is only the first couple of chit pulls for the turn.  What is going on in his half of the line?

If a critical emergency like this develops for Jackson’s Corps, he and Lee can do nothing about it.  They’ve been tied up putting out Longstreet’s fire.  Jackson’s boys are going to have to deal with whatever the chit pull gods throw down on them.  I hope they are already in a good position to handle it.

Imagine if they weren’t?  Imagine if they were also facing possible disastrous pulls like this on their side of the field?  What does Jackson do then?  Does he let Longstreet get whacked and save his HQ roll for his own troops?  Which emergency is more important?  Time for the Scotch.

Solitaire Suitability

This is why Pub Battles makes such a great solitaire system.  Look at all the head scratching decisions this forces you to deal with.  Struggling with all of these conundrums is very interesting and rewarding as a solitaire game. 

Multi Player

Surprisingly, it makes for a great multiplayer game as well.  Imagine  playing through this same situation with other live players.  Imagine that a separate live player is Longstreet.  You are Jackson.  You can watch and see all these events unfolding with Burnside.  The only problem is:  You can’t communicate with Longstreet! 

You can’t strategize and work out the best course of action here.  He can’t say, “Well, don’t worry about me.  Your problem is much more pressing.  I think I can handle this on my own.”  OR “I don’t care what you have going on, if you don’t help salvage this now, the battle is lost!”  Which one is he thinking?  What is your assessment?  Agonizing fun!

I know it’s hard to get other wargame players.  It is way worth the effort here.  You also have 2 big advantages working in your favor:

  • It’s easy to learn.
  • It plays fast.

Lessons from Gettysburg

Posted on by

Notes from the Design Table

First of all, this is coming together way faster than I expected.  I didn’t think this would be ready till next summer.  We might be done much sooner.

 

Losses Not So Bad

This battle is giving me a much different view of casualties.  When a unit is destroyed, that doesn’t mean 100% casualties were suffered.  In real world terms, it means that 50% casualties were suffered which renders the unit 100% ineffective.  Some of those casualties are lost stragglers.  Some have minor wounds.  They will return to the ranks overnight. At first, I thought I had suffered catastrophic losses on day 2.  There is no way I can continue this battle.  Maybe this combat is too bloody.  I resolved the whole battle in 1 day!

Wait a second.  Put half of those guys back on the board and flip everybody up to fresh again.  Oh.  Ok.  That’s not so bad.  That looks about historical.  We can fight from here.

Lesson learned:  All those guys in the dead pile?  They aren’t really dead.  Half of them spring back to life for the next day.  You’re probably ok.

 

Nice to Have Options

I love the scope of our new map.  Most maps here cut off at both historical flanks.  Ours is open.  It allows you to explore all possibilities.  Turn their flank on the left or right.  You can try.  Realistically, you probably won’t do it.  I like ‘not doing’ it because I chose to, NOT because some game rule or map MADE me do that.  Big difference.

What is also cool about this, is also the possibility of a Confederate side slip to the right.  We are designing this with the possibility of a Pipe Creek defense later as an expansion.  Don’t want to defend in Gettysburg?  Fine.  Fall back to Pipe Creek.  First day is a total disaster?  You lost Cemetery and Culp’s Hills?  Fine.  Fall back to Pipe Creek.  Confederates were able to side slip to the right and skip out south to Taneytown?  Now you better skedaddle down to Pipe Creek!

 

Interior Lines of Communication

At Antietam, Lee only has 2 Corps.  They are somewhat mixed and Lee can be in range of both of them.  Confederate HQs are rated higher than the Feds.  On top of that, Lee almost always can weigh in with a second opinion when it comes to jumping ahead of a move.  🙂

At Gettysburg, a much different story.  So far we are using all HQs rated the same.  Still, it’s a huge difference.  Mead is on the inside of his fish hook.  He is in range of almost all his Corps.  He also has many Corps to respond with.

Lee only has 3 Corps.  Along the longer stretching lines of communication, which Corps is he able to influence?  Usually the wrong one.

So Pender launched an attack on Cemetery Hill.  They got lucky and forced the Federals back.  In Pub Battles, that doesn’t mean you’ve taken the Hill!  It means you have shoved them back and now have a ‘chance’ to take the hill.

The next turn is a race to see who can get back up on Cemetery Hill first!  The Confederates have 1 roll to jump ahead and get there:  The Corps Commander.  Is Lee in range?  Probably not.

How many Federal Corps can get there?  Almost all of them in one way or another.  So there is about 4-6 rolls.  Can Mead roll also?  Yes.  He is in range of just about everybody.  Easy.  Who is going to get back up there first?  Most often the Potomac.  Why?  Because of interior lines.

 

Keep in mind that these are very rough and crude play test maps.  NOT the final version.

 

The Other Fog of War in Wargames

Posted on by

When we think about Fog of War in board gaming, we usually think of hidden units.  There are many ways to do this.  Traditional Kriegsspiel uses Umpires.  Each ‘player’ is isolated with his own map.  Only the Umpire knows where everybody is at any given time.

True Kriegsspiel is fantastic!  It does require lots of players though…  Most wargamers struggle to find 1 opponent, little lone teams of people.    

Wargames with Fog of War

Modern wargame (board games) have been moving towards incorporating Fog of War in their games.  Usually not with Umpires but with board game ‘technology’.  In many ways Columbia Games started this effort with their hidden blocks.  This conceals the unit type and strength.  This effort has grown with new companies pushing this concept in different ways:

Command Post Games

Columbia Games

Simmons Games

Worthington Games

The Other Fog of War

These companies all make great games that incorporate some Fog of War effects from Kriegsspiel into a regular 2 player board game.  As I think about playing Kriegsspiel and these games, I notice there is something missing.

In Kriegsspiel, you don’t know exactly where the enemy is or what they have.  Heck, half the time you aren’t certain about where your own people are or what they have!  That is true but it is only half the problem.  The other half of the problem is Communication and Control.  This is huge.

Control

When it is my turn to move, I don’t actually move them.  Another player (or an Umpire acting as my subordinate) moves them for me.  I give them orders telling them how to move and what to do but I don’t actually do the move or even see it.  Did they do what I said?  Did they do it exactly like I would have done?  Did they do it quickly or slowly?  I don’t know. 

In Kriegsspiel, I control MY pieces indirectly.  I don’t actually move and attack with them myself.  Imagine all the Fog of War that results from this one simple difference.  It is massive! 

Communication

Ok, so you don’t actually move the pieces, you tell somebody else to do it for you.  Keywords here are:  ‘Tell Somebody’.  That is Communication.  Did they hear what you said?  Did you say what you thought you said?  Do those words mean the same thing to them? 

Here is a bigger problem:  What if there is no communication?  You CAN’T talk to them?  At least not right now.  Maybe there is a turn or two delay.  What happens in the mean time?  Bam!  Fog of War. 

Example

It all starts out sounding so simple.  Your orders are to attack the enemy in Newville.  Throw them out and occupy Newville.  Hold and defend Newville from the enemy thereafter.  Fine.  What could go wrong with that?

You approach Newville.  As you do, you find that the enemy is not there.  Newville has been evacuated.  You see some enemy activity on your right flank and get the sneaking suspicion that they are preparing for a massive counter attack at you from there but you have no hard evidence to support this.

What do you do?  Do you occupy Newville as ordered?  If the enemy does attack from your right, you will easily be cut off.  If you delay and ask for clarification from command, the enemy could occupy Newville in the meantime.  Now you just lost and easily secured objective. 

Maybe your commander already knows about the enemy forming to your right.  Maybe they already have something in place to deal with that threat.  Maybe they are clueless and you are about to get stomped. 

Notice the key ingredient that causes the headache here is:  No Communication, not least not for the moment.  IF your commander was sitting right next to you, holding your hand, there would be no issue.  You both instantly know what is going on and can easily make the best decision. 

 

What can we do?

Hidden units in wargames are great.  They bring in much of the Fog of War.  From my Kriegsspiel experience, that is only a part.  A much bigger part of the Fog of War is limited Control and Communication.  How can we bring more of these elements into Wargaming? 

Our first big push in this direction is Dracula’s Final Stand.  Yes, it is a semi fantasy theme but make no mistake, it IS a wargame.  The movement & combat may be very simple.  I’ll argue that the C&C aspects are very advanced and sophisticated.

In many ways, Dracula is the opposite of traditional Block Games.  Dracula implements Fog of War not by Hidden Units.  All players can clearly see everything on the board at all times.  Guess what?  This makes little difference.  This game has massive amounts of Fog of War, like you’ve never seen.  (Unless of course you are used to Kriegsspiel.)  The Other type of Fog of War.   

Dracula’s Hopes and Fears

Dracula is a strong push in a very new direction:  Fog of War based on C&C.  This is very exciting and we plan to drive harder with this in more ‘serious’ wargame titles.  I can’t wait to see how this develops.  

The only down side I see is that it requires more people.  No way around this.  To get the real C&C Fog of War effects you MUST have teams.  It doesn’t take much.  You can start to see this with even 3-4 players.

To make this easier, we’ve kept the complexity to Dracula very low.  Grandma can play it.  If you are a Grognard, your first thought maybe to skip it.  A simple ‘Dracula’ type game is hardly worth our higher, cerebral, military science faculties. 

I’d ask you to think again.  Yes the movement and combat is really simple.  That’s so you can easily find players.  The military strategy, C&C is very complex. 

Can you lead and turn Grandma, two teenagers and your fishing buddy into an elite fighting force to take down the enemy without being able to talk to them half the time? 

Now you are practicing the true Art of War.  I would say this is a much more realistic and accurate model of Command.  “What if YOU were in command at Gettysburg?”

They were a sad lot.  Soldiers dressed in rags, poorly paid and low in morale.  Under Napoleon, they became heroes, achieving the highest, heights of glory.  

 

   

 

 

 

With Friends Like These

Posted on by

Games like this are fun but we can also learn priceless, real world lessons;

This is a good example of team player dynamics.  Radu (red dragon crest) moves first.  The path to Castle Dracula is wide open!  Radu moves into Poliesti. 

Now Radu can talk to the black crest player:  “Let me take your 6 Troops with me!  That will get me up to full strength so I can take Castle Dracula.”

“Heck no”, says the black crest player, “Those are MY Troops.  That will leave me with nothing.  If Dracula attacks I’ll lose my siege and get crushed.” 

“That’s ok,” says Radu, “You can march back to Rumelia and raise new troops.”

“YOU march back to Rumelia and raise new troops.”, responds the black player, “I’m taking down THIS Castle.”

If they can’t agree, what happens?  They are each in control of their own Troops.  You can’t make somebody give you their Troops.  Unless of course you are the Sultan.  That is an interesting twist but not the case here. 

Ok, so rebuffed, Radu continues his march north.  Maybe now he won’t have enough to Storm Castle Dracula but he can at lease Siege it. 

Next up to move:  black crest.  After thinking this over for a bit, he now sees a chance for glory.  He marches up the valley to have a little chat with Radu. 

“Hey, I think this will work better, if you give me your Troops now, I can attack Castle Dracula and take it down this turn!” –says the black crest. 

“Yeah right.” responds Radu, “Why don’t YOU march back to Rumelia and get your own Troops.”  

Same problem.  Same result.  Black crest marches north to Siege Castle Dracula.  It’s the best he can do.

 

Notice how this plays directly into Dracula’s hand.  Dracula moves later in the turn:

  • He can strike at Poliesti and cut off Supply to both Muslim armies;   OR
  • He can crush the black crest army at Castle Dracula;   OR
  • He can cut through the mountains and smash Radu in the valley. 

On top of that, how many penalty tokens are the other Muslim players going to give Dracula for wanting to knock their (Radu & black crest) heads together! 

To wargamers, this is often disturbing.  “That’s not the BEST move!  That’s not what they should do!”

 I know.  Isn’t it great?!  🙂  Guess what?  It happens all the time in real war with real officers.  You may think this game isn’t very ‘realistic’ because it doesn’t have thousands of counters and a 100 page rule book. 

I’d argue it is more realistic because of messy, command issues like this.  I’ll also argue it is more fun as well! 

The average person off the street can relate to this.  Everybody has to deal with conflict like this. 

How many times have you seen the ‘imperfect move’ being made at work?  You tried to persuade co-workers and management to do things differently but they didn’t listen?  Did it hurt your team’s performance?

Games like this are fun but we can also learn priceless, real world lessons;  and they are games everyone can enjoy playing together.       

What Now?

Posted on by

Maybe my move wasn’t the greatest but they just cost our team penalties.  Which is worse? 

In Turn 1, the triple crest (lower right) and then the Sultan both charged straight in at Dracula in Pilesti.  The result?  They were both completely destroyed.  Dracula was beat down but then he Recruited and Impaled a bunch of prisoners.  Still 1/3 of his army is gone.

 I attempted a third attack on Dracula but 3/5 of my army ran from the Impalements.  Luckily, most of Dracula’s army was sleeping when I arrived (failed their search rolls) so I was able to withdrawal before a battle with no losses. 

Now it is turn 2.  I have to move first.  What should I do? 

The Castles to the left and right are already under siege. 

If I attack Dracula, I’m liable to get smashed.  I also now have the only remaining army in the center.  I feel an obligation to hold that but I don’t want to just sit here and waste a turn.  We only have 3 turns left to conquer Wallachia and Transylvania.  The Sultan and triple crest can go back across the Danube and raise new armies. 

I could storm the Castle at Targoiste to the right.  Dracula hasn’t moved yet though.  This will weaken me and leave me vulnerable to a strike from him later. 

I don’t want to take the hit.  I’m the only one left with an army around here!  But on the other hand, we have to start wearing him down.  We can’t beat him head on but we have to start chipping away at him, so that he will collapse by turn 4. 

This is just an example to illustrate some of the tough decisions in this game.  Note how the dynamics would play out in a real multiplayer game.  In this case, the Sultan is there.  I could strategize with him and the triple crest on what to do.  The Sultan could even order me to make the move HE wanted if I disagreed.  He could even take all my Troops and send me back to Rumelia to raise a new army.

If you are off on your own, the decision is all up to you.  You also CAN’T consult your teammates for help.  Communication is against the rules.  What if I forget about some stupid rule and make a real bonehead move?  Yes, I’ll look like an idiot but I have a good excuse!  I forgot and nobody was able to tell me. 

Even better, when I make a really bad move, my ‘smart’ team mates are liable to groan and howl.  Guess what?  That’s “communication”.  Dracula gets penalty Re-Roll tokens for that. 

Maybe my move wasn’t the greatest but they just cost our team penalties.  Which is worse?