Pages

Friday, March 26, 2021

Situational Awareness on the Wargaming Table

Photo courtesy http://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/

Graham, our Master of Ceremonies for a continuing series of 15mm Spanish Civil War games featuring his recently published For Whom the Dice Rolls rules, has been very diligent in providing Game Briefings before the Tuesday night Zoom battles.  This extra effort has been quite useful in preparing for the task at hand.

MC Graham as puppet master moving our troops
This week's offering was no different.  In the battle packet were map, Orders of Battle, and a briefing.

Since one never knows which side will be assigned for play, I typically look over both OBs and briefings beforehand.  Approaching each battle as a puzzle to be solved, I mentally make notes of time/space considerations, relative strengths and weaknesses of each combatant, and potential avenues of attack and lines of defense.  The rules receive a quick skim too.  These pre-game exercises help to focus my attention toward improving my situational awareness on whichever side I land.
Battle map
Pre-Battle Notes:
  • The Nationalists hold a numerical advantage in infantry, armor, and heavier artillery.  Republicans hold an advantage in field guns. Nothing more.  There are no Off-Table Assets in this game.  Wait.  The Nationalists have brought their Off-Table heavy artillery asset on-table!
  • Nationalist terrain objectives are nearer to the Nationalist baseline than are the Republican objectives to the Republican baseline as shown in the two diagrams below:
    Nationalist entries and objectives (yellow)
    Republican entries and objectives (blue)
  • One Nationalist objective is to 'control' the railway.  Does that mean simply to cut the rail line or possess all or parts of it?
  • With numerical superiority and objectives within easier reach, I expect the Nationalists to attack.
  • With inferior numbers, lacking armor, and objectives much farther away, I expect the Republicans will fight a defensive battle. 
Game Night:
On game night, the game was much more well-attended than expected so commands were shuffled around a bit to accommodate seven players.  I think four players were expected.  No matter, Graham quickly allocated commands.

Phil, Will, and the two Richards were promoted to commands within the Nationalist army.  Steve, Ian, and I were plopped into the role of Republicans.  Since I had a copy of the rules, Graham appointed me as CiC for the Republicans with Ian and Steve taking on the role of brigadiers.

Now with only a few minutes to formulate a battle plan, I made some quick time/space calculations.

--------------------- Begin Digression --------------------
OK. Has anyone ever been in a participation game at a convention (or anywhere else) in which the victory conditions are such that units must reach a certain point on the table within a certain number of turns (typically exiting the opposite side of the board) to claim victory?  On occasion, the post-mortem shows that the unit(s) could not have reached the objective under the most favorable conditions.  Well, I have witnessed this situation as well as suffered it. 

Show of hands?   
--------------------- End Digression ----------------------

My quick calculations showed that Republicans moving in the fastest combat-ready posture (skirmish order) would take about eight impulses (three turns) to reach the hills on the opposite board edge.  That is not reckoning on any active resistance from a superior force or having the correct mix of activations to actually perform these required impulses.  With enemy resistance, I figured one enemy battalion could add a delay of three impulses to the timetable.  Given that these games rarely last longer than three turns in the typical three-hour gaming session, I deemed the Republicans unlikely to reach their objective within the given time constraints.  Is that enough to shift the Republican battle plan firmly to a defensive posture?

Perhaps, but there is yet another piece of information to consider.  What about the players, themselves?  While I have only gamed with the Monday Night Gamers for about six months, that is enough time to identify a few, general player profiles tendencies.

Will and Phil seem to be tenacious and aggressive attackers.  I have witnessed both tearing up any opposition standing between them and their objectives.  Ian and Steve, on the other hand, appear more suited to defensive postures.  Calm and capable, these traits I want for commanders in the trenches willing to hold a line.  Of course, I could be very well wrong but this is how I placed today's wager.  With the Nationalists holding the cards in numbers, attainable objectives, and aggression, there was little question in mind that the Nationalists would attack.  The Republicans seemed better suited to take the defense and counterattack if the opportunity presented itself.  

Now, with Graham orchestrating scenario development and player assignments, were these same considerations in play for him too?  Hmm.

How did these quick plans pan out?  Please visit Graham's battle report at The Sunken Road Conundrum to find out.

The gaming session ended at the beginning of Turn 3 with the Nationalists holding initiative but the Republicans poised for counterattack.  Even unopposed, a Republican attack from the start could not have reached the Nationalist baseline before game ended.

Know thy self, know thy enemy, and know thy situation.

66 comments:

  1. Nice piece of analysis. This wouldn't be the first time Republican commanders were given ambitious orders that they would struggle to complete. You did overlook a few things in your catalogue of doom - the Republicans had armoured cars, and the Nationalists didn't, and the International Brigades activate on all suits. Also, the Republicans had a slight advantage in the initiative roll and command sequences.

    But, yes, you were up against it a bit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Catalog of Doom" - I like that!

      When ACs have been on the table in the past, they seem to be lost very quickly. Perhaps I discounted them too much. Even counting ACs, the Republicans faced an armor deficit.

      On the IB activation choice, that was useful. Since only the IB activate on hearts, this allowed all other resources to funnel into the beleaguered right while maintaining the minimum BDE AP allotment.

      Delete
  2. In the American Army they call this 4 x step process "intelligence preparation of the battlefield" or IPB for short.
    "Define the Battlefield Environment, Describe the Battlefield's effects, Describe/Define the Threat, Determine Threat Courses of Action".

    Seems like you have applied them in your games as a result of common sense logic.

    I must say I usually dont take my games as seriously but perhaps the W/ L tally would be different if I did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon has brought an analytical approach to our evening games. Our meet ups can best be summarised by this memorable exchange:
      "You're using tactics!"
      "Well, we've tried everything else, so I thought it was time to give it a go".

      Delete
    2. Steve, in F2F play, I frequently play with either ex-military or active military buddies. If I did not absorb some of their planning lessons, "W"s would be fewer and "L"s much greater.

      Delete
    3. Graham, is that approach welcomed and appreciated?

      Delete
    4. We all play a bit differently, and you have fitted right in. I think that the rest of the group are a bit more intuitive - except when some of us are playing some commercial rule sets (including me).

      Delete
    5. Is that intuition due to your preference for developing and playing homegrown rules and the natural evolution and gestation process that entails?

      Delete
    6. It's because normally I don't issue the briefing beforehand. People have to deal with what is on the table when they walk through the door of Shedquarters.

      Delete
    7. OK. I get that. Out of respect for the effort put in by the scenario designer and GM, players ought to make an attempt to put in similar prep to ensure a good contest. I hate seeing a scenario and gaming session marginalized by rash, reckless, and thoughtless play after so much work has gone into preparing for the contest.

      Delete
    8. Yes. It is nice if players pay attention to what you have told them (off line when it's just you and me, ask me about a game of Science v Pluck I ran once), but also sometimes what seems obvious to the designer isn't obvious to the players. I try to write stuff that fits my players and also - given time constraints - won't be too complicated, so I do write a lot of "just run at them" scenarios.

      Delete
  3. An interesting preamble to visiting Trebbiano site to see what eventuated Jon! On the face of it, the Republicans seem to be on a hiding to nothing, so your plan to defend and see what develops is the best available in the circumstances. A few bad rolls for the Nationalists may present an opportunity to attack against the expected run of play ......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well....it wasn't as bad as Jon made out. "Hiding to nothing" overstates it. He had a couple of ATK guns too, and his IBs were excellent quality and able to move without command card restrictions.

      Delete
    2. Nice maps. I think I am probably guilty of using victory points as a guide and if failing them, still would draw some satisfaction from giving the enemy a bloody nose in the field ........ well at least having their nose more bent out of shape than my own! So that would be a technical game loss, but with some positives coming out of it.

      Defeating the enemy comes high on my priority list, winning comes quite low ..... work that one out :-)

      Delete
    3. The maps are drawn using a now unavailable drawing package called Serif Draw Plus. It enables you to build images by combining elements. So the roads are tow different coloured lines set at different widths. The Sunken Road and Railway lines are drawn using a line tool that comes with different "brushes". Those are both types of sewing.

      I always have slight issue with victory conditions, as if you destroy the enemy army quite often it doesn't matter if you don't get to your objectives immediately. However, they give players something to focus on.

      Delete
    4. Keith, when distilled, I figured this plan may offer the best option for the Republicans. If your objectives are unattainable then denying the enemy of theirs is reasonable.

      Delete
    5. Norm, the maps are very nicely done. Clean and easy to read. Graham did a great job on this map.

      I find no fault with your priority list. The plan was to stop the Nationalists on ground of our choosing...their objective!

      Delete
  4. Impressive planning and strategery (to borrow the term from a past president), Jonathan! :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seems logical to assess strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the board prior to starting the game. I like the way you went about this.

    Knowing the generals involved and their playstyles also helps, though in my case with so few people to play against, one tends to know from game's start how one's opponent will probably play purely through repetition of playstyle in past games. In conclusion, I need more opponents. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed this approach, Dai! Like poker, one cannot always stick to playing the same MO. Yes, I think you may need more opponents...

      Delete
  6. Interesting and timely I had better go back a measure how far the Rebels need to get out of the swamp !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phil Barker once gave me some very good advice on table size and relative move distances at a conference. I only wish I could remember it.

      Delete
    2. Everyone's a comedian today! If you recall Phil's Rule of Thumb, please share.

      Delete
    3. I hope to see him in July, if he is fit enough, and I will ask him again. It is something like width of table divided by maximum move speed shouldn't exceed 6 or 8.

      Delete
  7. Interesting set up and I like scenarios where it's not all even, easy for me to say as I wasn't in your position!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iain, I don’t mind an uneven contest either. It makes the situation more of a challenge and more rewarding when you can beat the odds. In this situation, the objectives were unattainable even with perfect play. Don’t take this as a criticism. I am simply analyzing the situation and assessing if the objectives offer a feasible solution.

      Delete
    2. Definitely. An uneven scenario is much more realistic and also challenging (especially for the weaker side) than any equal points-based game.

      Delete
  8. Thorough planning and analysis Jonathan. Can’t say as much for myself as I do tend to take risks on table sometimes which with hindsight I shouldn’t take. Read the AAR on Graham’s blog and have to say I enjoyed it a lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to hear you enjoyed it. Have we met at a WD style event or one of Paddy G's megagames or similar?

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Mike. In hindsight, there are often decisions we would make differently. This post is not about fun or not fun but thoughts on how to approach the problem at hand. The game, itself, was fun and enjoyed by all, no doubt.

      Delete
    3. No Graham, we haven’t met for sure but I enjoy following a few select gaming blogs.

      Jon, agreed the post is not about fun per se, but isn’t the problem-solving / pre-game analysing an integral part of the game’s enjoyment too? Personally I get a kick out of pre-game planning or from cracking tabletop conundrums as much as from a string of good die rolls.

      Delete
    4. Okay. It's such a distinctive surname, I thought I recognised it.

      And as for what people enjoy in a game - yes, people enjoy different things. For some it's the pleasure of looking at the lovely toys, regardless of how daft the rules outcomes are.

      Delete
    5. If we all did not enjoy seeing toy soldiers out on the table, we would be playing hex and counter wargames.

      Delete
  9. Some very useful insights to this particular situation and games/scenarios in general. I've played in quite a few games over the years where it has been physically impossible for one side to achieve their objective in the time alloted, even without opposition interference, which is not fun for either side. Hence scenario design is an art that few of us can master.

    If possible it's great for neither side to know the others objectives, which would be the case for most 20thC battles, probably less for for earlier times. So when you have the chance to only know you're own objectives and not the opponents, nor the forces arrayed against you, I think you get a much more challenging and interesting game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say "not fun for either side" is a bit of a sweeping statement. I don't think the seven players who took part in the game had a thoroughly miserable time. Since the last lockdown started in November 2020 I've run an average of three games a month, pretty much all scenario driven, and the same players keep coming back, so I'm doing something right.

      I'd agree that briefings should be secret, but in these difficult times when its just good to be in touch with people I operate a policy of everyone who turns up gets to play, so the briefings go out to everyone (the total group size is about 12) so that we can get up and running as soon as we can.

      And I don't think it is at all unusual for commanders to be given over ambitious targets with either inadequate forces or time.

      Delete
    2. I wasn't criticising this scenario at all, but just reflecting upon certain games I've played in with friends over the years. One sticks in the mind where one player spent the whole game trying to manouevre his troops to take part in the attack, but early on we realised he would never be able to make it, so he didn't have 'fun'.

      I love 'Bloody Big Battles' by Chris Pringle and enjoy the historical scenarios contained therein, where generally speaking the French or Austrian player is up against when the Prussians and their Krupp guns get going. However they are fun to play as you learn an awful lot about a battle at the same time.

      Again your briefings work perfectly well for the situation we're all in, with your games certainly garnering a lot of support, so you're obviously doing everything right!

      Delete
    3. I see your friend's experience and raise him sat in a cupboard for 3 hours, and visited by an umpire three times.

      Chris' scenarios for BBB have a good reputation. I had an interesting discussion with him about a battle in the 1879 Pacific War when I published "It's Getting a Bit Chile".

      Delete
    4. Thanks to both of you for your commentary and discussion! It is encouraging when a topic sparks some debate.

      Steve, I am pleased to see that you enjoyed my thoughts and analysis of the scenario. I agree that scenario design is an art form unto itself. Likewise, assessing a situation and formulating a feasible plan requires art and science as well. In no way were my pre-game planning thoughts a criticism of the scenario design. They were simply a reasoned assessment of the situation before me and my options for response.

      On the topic of offering pre-game briefings, my thought is that this is driven by both the situation being modeled and the objective of the game master. What type of game is being presented, what knowledge should the players know, what knowledge does the GM want the players to know, and what type of gaming experience is desired?

      Without considering battle options; formulating a plan; and employing strategies and tactics, a wargame can devolve into an uninteresting (to me), dice rolling contest. A plan of "attack the unit to your front and roll more sixes than your opponent" is not that appealing.

      Graham, from the post-game correspondence from players present, not one said the game was not enjoyable. To the contrary! Everyone said they enjoyed the contest greatly. The game was fun and challenging. We took what was offered and made plans accordingly.

      You said, "And I don't think it is at all unusual for commanders to be given over ambitious targets with either inadequate forces or time."

      This is not unusual at all. It is also not unusual for a commander to take these inputs of scarce resources (time and forces), assess the situation, and develop a plan to implement these overly ambitious directives from above. I think my pre-game planning did exactly that.

      Delete
    5. Over the years I've learnt that translating scenarios from one set of rules doesn't always work that well, which was the case with our game where my friend didn't get to 'play'. The scenario was an 'Old School Classic' and really didn't work with modern rules, but we only found this out early on in the game, but carried on regardless!

      This is one reason I'm trying to stick to core rulesets, as I broadly know what will and what won't work with them. Even then I don't always get it right! "To err is human" and all that;)

      I play most of my games with a chum whose a Royal Marines major and it's fascinating to see how he approaches the task in hand, often vocallising his thought processes, which I've found very illuminating. Ditto our post game chats and general wargaming talk.

      So virtual chats like this are brilliant as I certainly enjoy the banter, like to have my preconceptions challenged etc. It's the best way to learn IMHO!

      Delete
    6. "To Ur Is Human" is another one of my sets of rules. For Mesopotamian warfare. It's a pun.

      Delete
    7. Steve, virtual chats like this are very enlightening to me. What I thought may be a mundane examination of my approach to problem solving generated an interesting debate. Thank you for contributing!

      Delete
    8. I have the rules and that's why I added the quote to my comment!

      Delete
    9. In which case, sir, may I remark that you are a man of taste and discernment.

      Delete
  10. Interesting post Jonathan. I always wonder just how a commander arrays his forces for a battle before meeting the enemy, what his thinking is etc. I am talking ACW here or that kind of period, it must have been like a game of blind man's bluff, Antietam is a great example of confusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you found my ramblings on pre-game planning interesting, George. Antietam certainly was an example of commanders not knowing how to prosecute a battle. It is said that McClellan made more errors in this battle than any other commander in the entire war. How often do we see rules for refighting Antietam that require special “McClellan” rules in order to attempt to duplicate these shortcomings?

      Delete
  11. Interesting thoughts, Jonathan. I also faced such situations when the attacking side isn’t able to reach the objectives due to distance or timeframe. And it was obviouse before the beginning of game, but shall we refuse to play? I guess never:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Dmitry. No, we never refuse to play, do we?

      Delete
  12. Sounds like a good group to game with. I have fond memories of past years in which I was part of one informal group or another where you got to know what to expect and which players would believe your feints and tricks and which would be likely to see through them and vice versa. Esp good when you or an opponent suddenly make an unexpected move, especially if they tried to lull your suspicions first and you bought into it and made 'ass-u me-tions'. :)

    Now at conventions, part of the interest is often not knowing many of your allies or your enemies so its another bit of unknown to add spice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a great group to game with. Two past presidents of the SoA amongst the number, for starters, plus the bloke who organises the SoA annual battle day, so an active and involved group. They are great to play test new ideas on and game with generally. Plus we also have this new American fellow...

      Delete
    2. Ross, these guys are terrific! I have been gaming with them remotely for about six months and not once have I heard a work in anger over a game. Every wargamer should be so lucky as to have such a good-natured and jovial bunch of fellows with which to shall a hobby and good camaraderie.

      Delete
    3. Of course it helps we're not all in the same room together.

      Delete
    4. Very funny, Graham! I bet you all get along very well. Now, the debates on the upcoming battle of Northampton may prove interesting. I read your co-authored book last night on the battle.

      Delete
    5. I'm not responsible for that chapter. That's one of Mike's, and he's the expert. Although I did do the board game of it, and I am sufficiently au fait with it to guide round the battlefield.

      Delete
  13. Nice thought exercise. I was once in a mega game as the CiC of the Union forces and our objective was all or nothing: we had to reach a piece of ground. The problem was that we had to cover something like 28 feet of table to get there, moving at 12" per
    turn (ie, 28 turns--not counting the odd confederate division or two that might be along the way). Needless to say, we chucked the idea of "winning and losing" and just played the game (it wound up going about 7 turns by the end of the day). It seems a common pitfall of scenario design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ed. I have seen situations similar to the one described at more than one convention game. You made a good decision to simply play on.

      Delete
  14. We still talk about one of our group games which was supposed to have been a retreat from Moscow scenario played lengthways, with the French placed piecemeal and the Russian pursuers arriving one brigade at a time. The French player realised that there was nothing to stop him arraying his artillery from one side of the table to the other, and their deployment area was so close to the Russian arrival zone that each brigade was under immediate cannister fire from at least forty guns. I think we played three turns out of courtesy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Good story! Scenarios must be designed with careful forethought. It’s tough to anticipate all of the directions in which a game may turn. I would have liked seeing the look on both the GM and Russian players when the French deployed their guns.

      Delete
  15. Great insight into your process Jonathan, and yes it is frustrating when a scenario has objectives which are not actually obtainable!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Glad this look into my battle assessment was useful, Mark. Having primary objectives out of reach was not frustrating at all. I simply needed an alternative approach to tackle the situation. Working to deny the opposition from its objective is just as challenging and rewarding.

      Delete
  16. It’s true that if you game with the same folks often you pick up on their habits. Those that know me know that I like to be aggressive so sometimes the GM is cheeky and will assign me to a defensive role. I squirm and squirm when that happens. 😀
    I’ll also raise my hand; I once played a game at a convention set in WWII where a convoy had to cross the table. Kinda like a bridge to far. The time line was too tight and the convoy could only delay 1 turn out of the eight planned so never really had a choice. It wasn’t as much fun as it could of been. 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of the fun of GMing is that you can push players a little out of their comfort zone. I like asking "defenders" to attack and "attackers" to defend.

      Thanks for raising your hand and providing a situation where time/space relationships were not carefully considered in scenario development.

      Delete