Hi guys,

Just published a post on my blog describing a simple 'micro' campaign - like a
mini campaign but even simpler!!! The first post is here:

http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/micro-campaigning-part-i/

And the second post is here:

http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/micro-campaigning-part-ii/

Hope it's of some interest!

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

Have any of you tried to do Kriegspiel solo? If you have, how did it go?
I am wondering if I can incorporate it's game mechaninc's in with TreeFrog's
Waterloo boardgame mechanic's. I want to come up with a do-able scenario for my
Leipzig campaign....please advise....Jeff

Does anyone know of a good game I could play?I am excluding Battle Cry.Thanks.

With that in mind, I don't think AA will dis-appoint.  Let us know how it works
out for you.

Thorfin

--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, Colin MacMillan <colinmacmillan@...> wrote:
>
> " ...I assure you that I am no sock puppet, merely a soloist of 20 years that
has found one of those rare games where I derive the enjoyment from the
constantly changing, challenging tactical situation I am faced with as a small
unit commander on the ground rather than from the God like perspective of
watching a battle unfold in front of me. Not that I don't enjoy the latter, just
that I like the brain food and excitement of the former."
>
> Thanks for your help, I'll be following up on them.
> Your comment above describes me exactly! This is what I'm looking for as well.
And things not going quite as you expected!  Modern warfare isn't an area I was
looking at, but your comments certainly have got me looking - weighing up the NZ
dollar vs US dollar - credit card in hand!
> Again, thanks for your help
> Colin
> New Zealand
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: thorfin286 <andrea.charley@...>
> To: SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 2:37:54 AM
> Subject: [SoloWarGame] Re: Ambush Alley - Solo?
>
>  
> Yes, very good for solo IMHO.
>
> I came across these rules about a year ago and have played them a lot since,
mostly solo, but also with my 8 year old son and I on the same side. I really
enjoy them, I think they have given me the best solo experience of any set of
rules ever.
>
> Although they are written for modern they work well with very minor
adaptations for any period from late 19th century onwards. Most of my battles
have been colonial North West Frontier encounters as that is my thing. However,
we have also played the rules Sci-fi with Space Marines versus Orks for my son's
benefit.
>
> Bear in mind that the "Ambush Alley Rules" are written specifically for
asymmetric warfare but they also have a set with very similar mechanisms called
"Force on Force" for more symmetric warfare. AA as written, has specific, easy
to follow, solo rules so I would suggest starting with them. Force on Force does
not have this feature but could be adapted without too much trouble (although I
haven't played FoF yet).
>
> I would suggest that the AA rules are well worth having for any solo gamer,
even if it is just for the mechanisms. Don't be put off, as I was initially, at
them being pitched at modern asymmetric warfare. The low entry threshold is also
good - I started out with 10 regulars versus 25 irregulars.
>
> Go here http://www.ambushal leygames. com/aars. html and scroll down to
"Rescue at Jalala" for an AAR of one of my North West Frontier Colonial Battles
using AA.
>
> Go here http://www.ambushal leygames. com/forum/ and here http://games.
groups.yahoo. com/group/ AmbushAlley/ for quick answers to queries and lots of
other info on the rules.
>
> I assure you that I am no sock puppet, merely a soloist of 20 years that has
found one of those rare games where I derive the enjoyment from the constantly
changing, challenging tactical situation I am faced with as a small unit
commander on the ground rather than from the God like perspective of watching a
battle unfold in front of me. Not that I don't enjoy the latter, just that I
like the brain food and excitement of the former.
>
> Hope this helps.
> Thorfin
>
> --- In SoloWarGame@ yahoogroups. com, Colin MacMillan <colinmacmillan@ ...>
wrote:
> >
> > I read on their webpage that these wargame rules play solo.
> > Anybody had any experience?
> >
> > The thought of only having to field around 10 figures a side is kind of
appealing - given the absolute procrastinator of a painter that I am.
> >
> > Colin
> > NZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hello to another ACW buff.  Depending on what level you want to operate at then:

If you want a 'dive straight in' board game designed for Solo play then Mosby's
Raiders by Victory Games (1985) is excellent.  You are playing essentially at an
operational level.   A game takes between two and three hours to play.

Across Five Aprils is another Victory Games product (1992) though not designed
expressly for solo play it does have solo options.  the battles covered are Bull
Run, Pea Ridge, Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Bentonville and your unit size and
formation sizes are variable depending on the battle.  A game takes between two
and three hours to play.

Then of course you could go for the games produced by The Gamers now published
by Multi-Man Publishing (MMP)

a.. 1988 In their Quiet fields
a.. 1988 Thunder at the Crossroads
a.. 1990 August Fury
a.. 1991 Barren Victory
a.. 1992 Bloody Roads South
a.. 1992 Perryville
a.. 1992 Embrace An Angry Wind
a.. 1994 No Better Place to Die

All of the above can be adapted without too much difficulty to operate Solo and
because they utilize the same game base structure the same mechanics operate
over all of them.

Being a VSW (Veteran Solo Wargamer)  my stuff has been collected over decades so
you could have a problem finding some of these but hopefully it will get you
started on where to look.

Best Regards,

Lone "Wolf" Warrior (aka 'That Graham Empson')


"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever"
Gandhi

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Graham,
You rated the VG games at 2-3 hours, what would you rate the Gamers/MMP games?
Also what would you rate the complexity of the Gamers/MMP vs. VG?
Thanks.
John

--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, <wolf.warrior@...> wrote:
>
> Hello to another ACW buff.  Depending on what level you want to operate at
then:
>
> If you want a 'dive straight in' board game designed for Solo play then
Mosby's Raiders by Victory Games (1985) is excellent.  You are playing
essentially at an operational level.   A game takes between two and three hours
to play.
>
> Across Five Aprils is another Victory Games product (1992) though not designed
expressly for solo play it does have solo options.  the battles covered are Bull
Run, Pea Ridge, Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Bentonville and your unit size and
formation sizes are variable depending on the battle.  A game takes between two
and three hours to play.
>
> Then of course you could go for the games produced by The Gamers now published
by Multi-Man Publishing (MMP)
>
> a.. 1988 In their Quiet fields
> a.. 1988 Thunder at the Crossroads
> a.. 1990 August Fury
> a.. 1991 Barren Victory
> a.. 1992 Bloody Roads South
> a.. 1992 Perryville
> a.. 1992 Embrace An Angry Wind
> a.. 1994 No Better Place to Die
>
> All of the above can be adapted without too much difficulty to operate Solo
and because they utilize the same game base structure the same mechanics operate
over all of them.
>
> Being a VSW (Veteran Solo Wargamer)  my stuff has been collected over decades
so you could have a problem finding some of these but hopefully it will get you
started on where to look.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Lone "Wolf" Warrior (aka 'That Graham Empson')
>
>
> "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever"
Gandhi
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

lauraj400,
If you want a strategic-level ACW game that is fun and easy to play solo (and
doesn't take all day) try A House Divided.
IMHO the Phalanx edition has the best components, but I prefer the 1st edition
GDW rules (old school). It's also an award-winning 2-player game.

I always wanted to take a weekend to play out A House Divided using Battle Cry
to resolve the battles...

Regards,
John


--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, "lauraj400" <lauraj400@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of a good game I could play?I am excluding Battle Cry.Thanks.
>

All your answers can be found at  www.boardgamegeek.com
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "jgferryman_gamemeister" <jgferryman@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:52:20
To: <SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [SoloWarGame] Re:solo ACW games (was RE: I am a real American Civil War
buff)

Graham,
You rated the VG games at 2-3 hours, what would you rate the Gamers/MMP games?
Also what would you rate the complexity of the Gamers/MMP vs. VG?
Thanks.
John

--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, <wolf.warrior@...> wrote:
>
> Hello to another ACW buff.  Depending on what level you want to operate at
then:
>
> If you want a 'dive straight in' board game designed for Solo play then
Mosby's Raiders by Victory Games (1985) is excellent.  You are playing
essentially at an operational level.   A game takes between two and three hours
to play.
>
> Across Five Aprils is another Victory Games product (1992) though not designed
expressly for solo play it does have solo options.  the battles covered are Bull
Run, Pea Ridge, Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Bentonville and your unit size and
formation sizes are variable depending on the battle.  A game takes between two
and three hours to play.
>
> Then of course you could go for the games produced by The Gamers now published
by Multi-Man Publishing (MMP)
>
> a.. 1988 In their Quiet fields
> a.. 1988 Thunder at the Crossroads
> a.. 1990 August Fury
> a.. 1991 Barren Victory
> a.. 1992 Bloody Roads South
> a.. 1992 Perryville
> a.. 1992 Embrace An Angry Wind
> a.. 1994 No Better Place to Die
>
> All of the above can be adapted without too much difficulty to operate Solo
and because they utilize the same game base structure the same mechanics operate
over all of them.
>
> Being a VSW (Veteran Solo Wargamer)  my stuff has been collected over decades
so you could have a problem finding some of these but hopefully it will get you
started on where to look.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Lone "Wolf" Warrior (aka 'That Graham Empson')
>
>
> "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever"
Gandhi
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Must remind myself to stay out of the loft.  Just found some more Board Games
with High solo playability in there that are also worth a good look:

   1.. Stonewall Jackson's Way, 1992
   2.. Here Come the Rebels, 1993
   3.. Roads to Gettysburg, 1993
   4.. Stonewall in the Valley, 1995
   5.. Stonewall's Last Battle, 1996
   6.. On To Richmond, 1998
These are all Avalon Hill Games and my copies are now quite well used but they
have provided me with some good games and enhanced my solo mechanisms.

The links should work okay [lives in hopes] and take you to BoardGameGeek
website.


Best Regards,

Lone "Wolf" Warrior (aka 'That Graham Empson')


"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever"
Gandhi

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, "jgferryman_gamemeister" <jgferryman@...>
wrote:
>
> Graham,
> You rated the VG games at 2-3 hours, what would you rate the Gamers/MMP games?

> Also what would you rate the complexity of the Gamers/MMP vs. VG?
> Thanks.
> John
>

John,

The Gamers/MMP games take significantly longer to play through than VG if you
ignore the intro scenarios. Depending upon which game and which scenario of a
game you could spend 24 hours or more. The stuff of leaving it on the table
until you have finished in the long winter evenings.  The VG games are more of
the 'got a few hours and want to play'.

Gamers/MMP have a high level of complexity whereas VG are hovering around the
low to medium level.

Just for completeness the Avalon Hill games I just posted fall between these
having a low to medium complexity but varriable time-scales depending upon
scenarios.

I suppose ultimately it is really a matter of how much time you have and whether
you can leave the game set-up or not.

Hope this helps.

Lone "Wolf" Warrior [aka THAT Graham Empson]

RE: "All your answers can be found at  www.boardgamegeek.com"
I wish this were true.

Unfortunately BGG does NOT rate a game's complexity -- frequently it doesn't
even tell you how many pages are in the rule book. Also the time to play is
usually taken from the publisher's marketing info on the game box, and so is
wildly innaccurate.

BGG is a great idea if it were used objectively, but most people will rate a
game low because they don't like that type of game, rather than rating it what
it deserves and commenting that they personally don't like that type of game.
New games get a lot of 10s whether they deserve it or not, excitement I guess,
and then it seems these are never changed later, so newer games have
artificially high ratings.

The only use I get out of it is by identifying those individuals who rate games
similarly to myself and then using the GeekBuddy Analysis to get their takes.

Another two cents worth almost both.

John


--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, Msborba@... wrote:
>
> All your answers can be found at  www.boardgamegeek.com
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "jgferryman_gamemeister" <jgferryman@...>
> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:52:20
> To: <SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [SoloWarGame] Re:solo ACW games (was RE: I am a real American Civil
War buff)
>
> Graham,
> You rated the VG games at 2-3 hours, what would you rate the Gamers/MMP games?
> Also what would you rate the complexity of the Gamers/MMP vs. VG?
> Thanks.
> John
>
> --- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, <wolf.warrior@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello to another ACW buff.  Depending on what level you want to operate at
then:
> >
> > If you want a 'dive straight in' board game designed for Solo play then
Mosby's Raiders by Victory Games (1985) is excellent.  You are playing
essentially at an operational level.   A game takes between two and three hours
to play.
> >
> > Across Five Aprils is another Victory Games product (1992) though not
designed expressly for solo play it does have solo options.  the battles covered
are Bull Run, Pea Ridge, Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Bentonville and your unit size
and formation sizes are variable depending on the battle.  A game takes between
two and three hours to play.
> >
> > Then of course you could go for the games produced by The Gamers now
published by Multi-Man Publishing (MMP)
> >
> > a.. 1988 In their Quiet fields
> > a.. 1988 Thunder at the Crossroads
> > a.. 1990 August Fury
> > a.. 1991 Barren Victory
> > a.. 1992 Bloody Roads South
> > a.. 1992 Perryville
> > a.. 1992 Embrace An Angry Wind
> > a.. 1994 No Better Place to Die
> >
> > All of the above can be adapted without too much difficulty to operate Solo
and because they utilize the same game base structure the same mechanics operate
over all of them.
> >
> > Being a VSW (Veteran Solo Wargamer)  my stuff has been collected over
decades so you could have a problem finding some of these but hopefully it will
get you started on where to look.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Lone "Wolf" Warrior (aka 'That Graham Empson')
> >
> >
> > "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever"
Gandhi
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Good point John. In regards to playing time, I normally double what the
manufacturer claims.




________________________________
From: jgferryman_gamemeister <jgferryman@...>
To: SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, February 6, 2010 7:41:46 AM
Subject: [SoloWarGame] Re:solo ACW games (was RE: I am a real American Civil War
buff)

 
RE: "All your answers can be found at www.boardgamegeek. com"
I wish this were true.

Unfortunately BGG does NOT rate a game's complexity -- frequently it doesn't
even tell you how many pages are in the rule book. Also the time to play is
usually taken from the publisher's marketing info on the game box, and so is
wildly innaccurate.

BGG is a great idea if it were used objectively, but most people will rate a
game low because they don't like that type of game, rather than rating it what
it deserves and commenting that they personally don't like that type of game.
New games get a lot of 10s whether they deserve it or not, excitement I guess,
and then it seems these are never changed later, so newer games have
artificially high ratings.

The only use I get out of it is by identifying those individuals who rate games
similarly to myself and then using the GeekBuddy Analysis to get their takes.

Another two cents worth almost both.

John

--- In SoloWarGame@ yahoogroups. com, Msborba@... wrote:
>
> All your answers can be found at www.boardgamegeek. com
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "jgferryman_ gamemeister" <jgferryman@ ...>
> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:52:20
> To: <SoloWarGame@ yahoogroups. com>
> Subject: [SoloWarGame] Re:solo ACW games (was RE: I am a real American Civil
War buff)
>
> Graham,
> You rated the VG games at 2-3 hours, what would you rate the Gamers/MMP games?
> Also what would you rate the complexity of the Gamers/MMP vs. VG?
> Thanks.
> John
>
> --- In SoloWarGame@ yahoogroups. com, <wolf.warrior@ > wrote:
> >
> > Hello to another ACW buff. Depending on what level you want to operate at
then:
> >
> > If you want a 'dive straight in' board game designed for Solo play then
Mosby's Raiders by Victory Games (1985) is excellent. You are playing
essentially at an operational level. A game takes between two and three hours to
play.
> >
> > Across Five Aprils is another Victory Games product (1992) though not
designed expressly for solo play it does have solo options. the battles covered
are Bull Run, Pea Ridge, Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Bentonville and your unit size
and formation sizes are variable depending on the battle. A game takes between
two and three hours to play.
> >
> > Then of course you could go for the games produced by The Gamers now
published by Multi-Man Publishing (MMP)
> >
> > a.. 1988 In their Quiet fields
> > a.. 1988 Thunder at the Crossroads
> > a.. 1990 August Fury
> > a.. 1991 Barren Victory
> > a.. 1992 Bloody Roads South
> > a.. 1992 Perryville
> > a.. 1992 Embrace An Angry Wind
> > a.. 1994 No Better Place to Die
> >
> > All of the above can be adapted without too much difficulty to operate Solo
and because they utilize the same game base structure the same mechanics operate
over all of them.
> >
> > Being a VSW (Veteran Solo Wargamer) my stuff has been collected over decades
so you could have a problem finding some of these but hopefully it will get you
started on where to look.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Lone "Wolf" Warrior (aka 'That Graham Empson')
> >
> >
> > "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever"
Gandhi
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi
Maybe a silly question , but I want to subscribe to Lone Warrior and I
don't find the way to do it.
Thanks in advance
Rafa


http://www.rafaelpardoalmudi.com/ <http://www.rafaelpardoalmudi.com/>

http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/
<http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rafa,

Graham Empson put up a post about this a while ago:

<snip>

For current subscription rates please contact:



Richard Barbuto

Solo Wargamers Association,

1707 Ridge Road,

Leavenworth,

KS66048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



email: lonewarrior@...


<snip>

Regards

Dave

To: SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com
From: rpardo@...
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:24:34 +0000
Subject: [SoloWarGame] I want a subscription to Lone Warrior!






























Hi

Maybe a silly question , but I want to subscribe to Lone Warrior and I

don't find the way to do it.

Thanks in advance

Rafa



http://www.rafaelpardoalmudi.com/ <http://www.rafaelpardoalmudi.com/>



http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/

<http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















_________________________________________________________________
Tell us your greatest, weirdest and funniest Hotmail stories
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks a lot!
Rafa

--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, David Woollcombe-Gosson <d.w-gosson@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rafa,
>
> Graham Empson put up a post about this a while ago:
>
> <snip>
>
> For current subscription rates please contact:
>
>
>
> Richard Barbuto
>
> Solo Wargamers Association,
>
> 1707 Ridge Road,
>
> Leavenworth,
>
> KS66048
>
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
>
>
>
> email: lonewarrior@...
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> To: SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com
> From: rpardo@...
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:24:34 +0000
> Subject: [SoloWarGame] I want a subscription to Lone Warrior!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> Maybe a silly question , but I want to subscribe to Lone Warrior and I
>
> don't find the way to do it.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Rafa
>
>
>
> http://www.rafaelpardoalmudi.com/ <http://www.rafaelpardoalmudi.com/>
>
>
>
> http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/
>
> <http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tell us your greatest, weirdest and funniest Hotmail stories
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Well, not really, but the rates to anyone OUTSIDE of North America have gone up,
as a result of increased mailing costs. (I TOLD all you procrastinators on Mars
to get yer subscriptions before they went through the roof). While you lucky
Nort Americanos still get to pay only $25 US (cash, check, or money order to
Solo Wargamers Association, 1707 Ridge Road, Leavenworth KS 66048), Martians
have to pay $40 per annum.

Guess the space shuttle needs some more fancy new tiles.

Now, don't go crying in your Space Suit (hate that; clouds up the glass globe,
and makes the mini-surround-sound all gurgley). $40 is STILL a great deal. Where
else do you get 200 plus pages of current Solo practice for that kind of space
shekels? You can find ALL KINDS of good ideas in Lone Warrior, and when you are
through with it, you can recycle it in your Space Porta Potty. (What!? Heavens
no --- we meant READING material. Umn, but I prefer to read it in the Holodeck,
in my favorite rendition of Leonardo's Library).

Similarly, while (the rather scarce) back issues are still $5 per item,
including post, for the NA'ers, the cost to Mars has gone up to $8 each. (Hey,
don't blame me, I'm just the intergalactic messenger of glad tidings, not the
IPS --- Intergalactic Postal Service, that is).

For those of you who would prefer transmitting their space credits
electronically, the PayPal laser beam can be focused on lonewarrior@...
and don't forget to include your mailing address in the text of your PayPal
message. Otherwise Rich Barbuto the editor will think you are just contributing
(anonymously) to his Martian holiday fund.

Seur D'Armadilleaux
Will somebody get these diet Oreo crumbs outta my space helmet? Please?

Pretending something or nothing is everything or anything.



To: SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com
From: rpardo@...
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:39:32 +0000
Subject: [SoloWarGame] Re: I want a subscription to Lone Warrior!




























       Thanks a lot!

Rafa



--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, David Woollcombe-Gosson <d.w-gosson@...>
wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Rafa,

>

> Graham Empson put up a post about this a while ago:

>

> <snip>

>

> For current subscription rates please contact:

>

>

>

> Richard Barbuto

>

> Solo Wargamers Association,

>

> 1707 Ridge Road,

>

> Leavenworth,

>

> KS66048

>

> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

>

>

>

> email: lonewarrior@...

>

>

> <snip>

>

> Regards

>

> Dave

>

> To: SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com

> From: rpardo@...

> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:24:34 +0000

> Subject: [SoloWarGame] I want a subscription to Lone Warrior!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi

>

> Maybe a silly question , but I want to subscribe to Lone Warrior and I

>

> don't find the way to do it.

>

> Thanks in advance

>

> Rafa

>

>

>

> http://www.rafaelpardoalmudi.com/ <http://www.rafaelpardoalmudi.com/>

>

>

>

> http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/

>

> <http://rafa-pardo-almudi.blogspot.com/>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> __________________________________________________________

> Tell us your greatest, weirdest and funniest Hotmail stories

> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>


















_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This article started out as something different, and then developed into a new
direction, because of some off hand conversations with experienced Solo
Wargamers. As is often the case with buddies, the discussion wandered around
into some interesting topics and then migrated off into totally unrelated
fields. But here's the synopsis of 60 years of old heads who've played a lot of
Wargames, randomly talking about what they like in Solo Wargaming, and what
keeps them going strong, after several decades.

Whether we are doing face-to-face Wargaming, or Solo Wargaming, it pays to sit
back every once and a while, just to review the kind of games we are playing,
and possibly think about what else we might like to explore. Most of the old
hands seem to agree that Solo Wargaming SHOULD be the place where we break new
ground, each and every time out.

Sometimes we experience a break in play that seems to occur "naturally" (where
we put aside the little guys and wander off to do something else), and sometimes
we just have this itch, this sense of being a bit unhappy with what we are
doing, and the sense that we could be doing something a whole lot more exciting
with the little guys that we have. In either case, think of this as sort of a
call to Spring Cleaning. While we've presented a number of similar suggestions
over the years, this time we tried to take more of an overall Strategic Thinking
approach, to really stretch the limits of our Wargaming imagination to come up
with some fundamentally NEW options. Something FRESH.

As a quick review, two of the really fundamental principals in Solo Wargaming
are Variability (not always doing the same thing or just minor variations on the
same old set of scenarios, over and over again) and Unpredictability (trying to
give "the other side" a mind of his own --- coming up with some dark and devious
counter play, that is both entertaining and challenging). Because that's most
often what keeps a veteran Solo Wargamer going --- facing down his own worst
nightmares.

And we wanted to look at this within the context of the third element we want to
explore --- one aspect of the concept of running our own campaign --- like a
series of interwoven episodes that illuminate the whole. (Specifically,
displacement in Time and Interwoven story lines).

Set New Precedents Every Time
If we really want to keep our Wargaming efforts fresh, then try to figure out
some new twist, something we've never seen or come across or ever had to deal
with, each and every time out. Oh, it doesn't have to be so radical a divergence
that the whole effort is bound to fail, and we certainly don't have to throw our
whole (favorite) rule set into the trash. But let's consciously try to NOT do
the same ol' same ol' each and every session.

That way Solo doesn't become an exercise in bookkeeping. So THIS time out, maybe
we optimize the cavalry component, or minimize the vets for this scenario. Or
maybe we can introduce some partisans, or spies, or inclement weather (like a
landslide or an avalanche) or a pesky journalist or two (that pop up at the
worst time and enquire about the most embarrassing subjects, and get into the
line of fire). Or how about introducing problems with logistics? How about
trying a fighting retreat, where we need to capitalize on each and every piece
of ground, figure out the lines of retreat, and severely husband our resources
(both the physical resources like ammo, and the personnel --- we want to punish
the pursuit with the least cost in our own troops lives).

Who says that we "can't" try something, just because it's not covered in the
original rules? Add formation changes (or new formations like wedges or
rhomboids), or fire-and-retreat tactics, or a bit of some variable movement.
Even if our first efforts seem clumsy or give funny looking results, that's the
way we can carry out experiments to find what tweaking to the rules makes sense.
We can always "dial it back" so that the new variable doesn't take over and
alter the whole structure of the battle. Again, the idea is to keep things
interesting by injecting something like a 5% change. That's exactly how the rule
authors came up with their formulas --- they tested them in a couple of games,
got some useful feedback, and rewrote the tables so they were closer to what we
want to see as results.

Formation changes are one of the most hotly debated parts of Wargaming rules.
Lots of rule sets let you set up either in depth or in width, but once deployed,
that's it (but most rules are written for a 1 to 4 hour face-to-face
tournament-style game, where Solo is usually a multiple of that). Or the rules
might severely restrict the ability of a FILE of light horse to go galloping
through a gap, and then to turn right or left into a RANK of attackers on the
enemy flanks (which Seleucids performed). But Solo Wargaming lets us explore
these kinds of formations (where prototypical) and a lot more.

Keeping Up With The Latest Historical Research
A recent Saga article shows us that the Seleucid pikes were capable of a wide
range of formations that are rarely accommodated in our ancient rule sets. "The
pike units were entirely capable of 1) doubling, 2) dividing, 3) wheeling and 4)
turning; 5) to lengthen or shorten the line, 6) to assume double front; and to
form 7) wedge, 8) hollow wedge, 9) column, 10) line and 11) square formations as
needed.  The enemies the Seleucids faced in the east, the Parthians included,
could do very little against the phalangites when they were supported by archers
and cavalry."  Under controlled conditions, it is really exciting to try some of
these in our Solo battles (and even in face-to-face "friendly" battles with
friends who are willing to experiment with the new data). (Taken from The Battle
of Magnesia in January 189 BC By Ilkka Syvanne in the on-line ezine, Saga 121)

The whole point is, don't ever think of our current view of Military History as
being static and unchanging!

Find a Divergent Path
Occasionally stop when we come to a natural pause in the battle, and figure out
what are the most bizarre (but possible) changes-in-direction that could pop up
at THIS particular moment. For example, my key general figure has just been
thrown back by overwhelming enemy numbers. So I use a 20-sided die to figure out
if he is still game for the fray, with a 7 being the arbitrary median. And my
general rolls a rotten 4! Which I translate as "he falls back, and seems
unwilling to actively pursue the fight". But why has he fallen back? Is he also
suffering a concussion? Or has he just realized he isn't an unconquerable
superman? Or is he coming down with some long-term disease (like Napoleon was
reputed to have done at Waterloo)? Hammer out 6 options, and then dice for which
applies. Just remember, the idea here is (again) to add a touch of spice (just a
little bit) to the battle, and not to overpower the whole stew. We want to
explore something like a 5% variation on the "normal" Solo Wargaming themes.

Now, this particular general has been a moody guy ANYWAY (that's just what came
up on the original character generation; he suffers from bad teeth), and now it
looks like he's about to go through another change of personality. So we catalog
some possibilities, and then we can dice for which one is accurate.

1 Blames his underlings for all his troubles. They were weak and let him down
2 Suspicious that someone is out to get him. Who set him up to take this chance?
3 Sees hidden plots by his brother the king to discredit him
4 Thinks that someone is trying to get to him with bad spells; it's the
priesthood
5 Suffering from some brain disease that is making him unstable
	 6 The men are being rebellious, and he's going to teach them a lesson!

Don't think this sort of exercise doesn't apply to face-to-face wargamers,
either. Many of the tournament competitors that we run into in conventions have
adopted a similar ruse from time to time, if only with the intent of psyching
out their opponents. They come out with remarks like: "Be careful, my astrologer
says the omens aren't good for you today". And as often as not, they have a
model of the omen-taker as part of their base camp, exploring some poor
chicken's gizzard!

Interwoven Story Lines
The other thing we wanted to explore was the whole concept of Campaigns that are
interwoven, but with some displacement in time. By that I mean, we may have a
perfectly brilliant little set of battles going on (let's say it's 1944 WWII for
an example). But WHAT brought these particular protagonists together in this
place and at this particular time? How did they develop their skills? To answer
these questions, we may want to step BACK in time to 1943 or even 1942, and play
out a sort of pre-campaign game, with some of the same combatants. That develops
the previous story.

We can also assume that SOME of the men recorded their experiences in diaries or
later reminiscences, and THOSE can be part of a modern-day skirmish-level set of
games (like recovering the diary from Soviet towns, after the war). Or we can
trace how a fallen-man's diary gets passed along to someone else (or even
several people), and eventually gets saved and mailed to a relative (maybe even
from a Russian who finds the diary in a forlorn-hope last-ditch defense).

If we want a complete change of pace, we can explore some air-combat with Yaks
versus Me 109's and at some point, show the intersection between some of the
planes and our (previously underway) campaign on the ground.

The whole point is to push the envelope, and try something new. A steady diet of
even our favorite desert eventually becomes boring, so live a little, and
mix-it-up.

Happy Solo Wargaming

Bob
Seur D'Armadilleaux
The funny little guy in the fure-lined foxhole with all the crumpled-up papers
strewn around the outside

Bob wrote:
> The Battle of Magnesia in January 189 BC By Ilkka Syvanne in the on-line
ezine, Saga 121

Any idea how I can get a copy of this article? Sounds interesting.

Cheers

Steven

I was about to ask the same question! When I google 'Saga 121' I just get loads
of articles about insurance for the elderly ;o)

Chz, Jay
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Thomas" <steven@...> wrote:
>
> Bob wrote:
> > The Battle of Magnesia in January 189 BC By Ilkka Syvanne in the on-line
> ezine, Saga 121
>
> Any idea how I can get a copy of this article? Sounds interesting.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steven
>

Hey guys, I have just finished a rules hack to play GW's Lord of the Rings SBG
solitaire.

Please check it out if you're interested, and send any and all feedback my way.

http://dogui.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/isildurs-bane-solitaire-lotr-rules-hack/

Cheers!
Dogui

Thanks, now I have a reason to get all those figures out and paint and play!
Let me take a look at the file tomorrow.

Colin
(New Zealand - Not all of us played Hobbits!)




________________________________
From: doguipreacher <doguipreacher@...>
To: SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 4:23:47 AM
Subject: [SoloWarGame] LOTR solitaire

 
Hey guys, I have just finished a rules hack to play GW's Lord of the Rings SBG
solitaire.

Please check it out if you're interested, and send any and all feedback my way.

http://dogui. wordpress. com/2010/ 02/15/isildurs- bane-solitaire- lotr-rules-
hack/

Cheers!
Dogui







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

   I have painted up my armies (badly), constructed many buildings,  and have
subsribed to Lone Warrior,  but I am having a hard time figuring out exactly
how to go about using some of the info from the Lone Warrior magazine.  I am
seeing tables of outcomes and such,  but am having a hard time deciphering
exactly how these are to be used during an actual game.

My brain usually works best by learning by watching, would anyone be willing
to give me some assistance, preferrably someone who subscribes to the
afforementioned periodical?

I would be eternally gratefull.

Jim


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi

Are you new to solo wargaming and looking for ideas/assistance in
getting a game going? :or, are you seeking clarification of how to use
specific rules from a specific issue of Lone Warrior?

Best

David (UK)


--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, James Richards <jimmy@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have painted up my armies (badly), constructed many buildings, and
have
> subsribed to Lone Warrior, but I am having a hard time figuring out
exactly
> how to go about using some of the info

I am more looking for how to use the various charts of probability I see
throughout the issue,  I had a major network outage at work, so I had to
rush out the door at 5:30 am, and did not bring my issue with me for more
specific examples, but they all appear to be probability charts, and I am
wondering if there are some basic ground rules you all use which I am
unaware of, like which dice are employed, or is it a card system. I will
email tonight when I arrive back at my house.

Sorry if this is all very remedial to you all,  but I am very excited to
give this a start, as this will fit in nicely with my
chaotic-raising-two-small-kids schedule.

Cheers!

Jim

PS.  Are you in or near London?  I am due to be there in July for 4-5 days,
and am always up for a pint.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:32 AM, David <dav@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Hi
>
> Are you new to solo wargaming and looking for ideas/assistance in
> getting a game going? :or, are you seeking clarification of how to use
> specific rules from a specific issue of Lone Warrior?
>
> Best
>
> David (UK)
>
>
> --- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com <SoloWarGame%40yahoogroups.com>, James
> Richards <jimmy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have painted up my armies (badly), constructed many buildings, and
> have
> > subsribed to Lone Warrior, but I am having a hard time figuring out
> exactly
> > how to go about using some of the info
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:26 AM, James Richards <jimmy@...> wrote:

> I am more looking for how to use the various charts of probability I see
> throughout the issue
>

If you are reading LW169 Jan-Mar 2010, you may be referring to Bob Stewart's
Tagh Dum Bash article near the front. There's a large Fate Chart and other
material from the "Mythic Game Master Emulator" (GME) available from Word
Mill Games:

http://www.mythic.wordpr.com/page14/page9/page9.html

There is a demo version at:

http://www.mythic.wordpr.com/wm002demo.pdf

The GME is used as a sort of Magic 8 ball for decision making that can be
very useful for inspiring actions and situations for the non-player side, or
for scenario setup.

Bob also provides a bunch of Terrain Generator and Sights and Smells tables
that are a big part of his narrative style solo games, which he can help you
with. Bob is very active here (one of several Bobs, I think) and has
provided a wealth of information and starter tips in the files section of
this group.

The only other tables I see in that issue are associated with Kevin White's
Blitzkrieg rules which appear to be complete.

I've only received two issues of my LW subscription thus far, so can only
give you my impression based on those, plus a bit of reading back when
MagWeb was in operation. The contents do seem to vary from issue to issue.
There are typically an article or two on a long-running campaign (Bob
Stewart's is a prime example) and a stand-alone simple rule set. There will
also be some articles on various approaches to solo gaming. Even if I don't
game the periods discussed, there are usually some tidbits I can pick up
that are useful or at least thought provoking.

If you're just getting started with solo gaming, two of the classic works
are now in reprint and readily available. The grand-old master was Don
Featherstone, and you can find his "Solo Wargaming" at:

http://johncurryevents.co.uk/books/homepage.htm

CS Grant's "Programmed Wargames Scenarios" is a bit harder to find. On
Military Matters seems to have copies, though I've found it cheaper
elsewhere at times:

http://onmilitarymatters.com

If you're interested in rules that are "solo ready" out of the box, be sure
to check out Two Hour Wargames' (THW) free offerings at:

http://www.angelfire.com/az3/twohourwargames/free.html

These are, IMO, the most solo-ready products that you can buy. They're not
for everybody, and if your interests are beyond squad-to-platoon level
games, they may be at the wrong level, but the mechanics are brilliant and
should give you plenty of ideas that can be adapted to games of any size.
And of course, THW sells a wealth of period-specific sets.

Tundamental questions to consider:

1. What period or genre do you want to play?
2. What level of game (squad-platoon-company-higher) do you want to play?
3. Do you want to play an existing game solo, or are you open to creating
your own rules mashup?

Solo games are a great activity for the harried dad. Also, as your kids get
older, you can introduce them to the idea of cooperative gaming, rather than
pure competitive games. My sons and I always had a great time with
cooperative play computer games where we could work as a team, though they
also enjoyed playing together against dad. Unfortunately (well, for me) my
buddies are off to college now, so I'm gaming solo and only discovered solo
miniatures gaming after they'd left. I wish I'd discovered THW games so we
could have played some games with those GI Joes all those years ago!

Welcome to the group!

- Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you for the pointers,  I have just printed out a lot of material,  and
will be happily perusing them tonight, until my wife complains about the
light still being on.

Jim

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Bob George <bobstro@...> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:26 AM, James Richards
<jimmy@...<jimmy%40kissyfish.org>>
> wrote:
>
> > I am more looking for how to use the various charts of probability I see
> > throughout the issue
> >
>
> If you are reading LW169 Jan-Mar 2010, you may be referring to Bob
> Stewart's
> Tagh Dum Bash article near the front. There's a large Fate Chart and other
> material from the "Mythic Game Master Emulator" (GME) available from Word
> Mill Games:
>
> http://www.mythic.wordpr.com/page14/page9/page9.html
>
> There is a demo version at:
>
> http://www.mythic.wordpr.com/wm002demo.pdf
>
> The GME is used as a sort of Magic 8 ball for decision making that can be
> very useful for inspiring actions and situations for the non-player side,
> or
> for scenario setup.
>
> Bob also provides a bunch of Terrain Generator and Sights and Smells tables
> that are a big part of his narrative style solo games, which he can help
> you
> with. Bob is very active here (one of several Bobs, I think) and has
> provided a wealth of information and starter tips in the files section of
> this group.
>
> The only other tables I see in that issue are associated with Kevin White's
> Blitzkrieg rules which appear to be complete.
>
> I've only received two issues of my LW subscription thus far, so can only
> give you my impression based on those, plus a bit of reading back when
> MagWeb was in operation. The contents do seem to vary from issue to issue.
> There are typically an article or two on a long-running campaign (Bob
> Stewart's is a prime example) and a stand-alone simple rule set. There will
> also be some articles on various approaches to solo gaming. Even if I don't
> game the periods discussed, there are usually some tidbits I can pick up
> that are useful or at least thought provoking.
>
> If you're just getting started with solo gaming, two of the classic works
> are now in reprint and readily available. The grand-old master was Don
> Featherstone, and you can find his "Solo Wargaming" at:
>
> http://johncurryevents.co.uk/books/homepage.htm
>
> CS Grant's "Programmed Wargames Scenarios" is a bit harder to find. On
> Military Matters seems to have copies, though I've found it cheaper
> elsewhere at times:
>
> http://onmilitarymatters.com
>
> If you're interested in rules that are "solo ready" out of the box, be sure
> to check out Two Hour Wargames' (THW) free offerings at:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/az3/twohourwargames/free.html
>
> These are, IMO, the most solo-ready products that you can buy. They're not
> for everybody, and if your interests are beyond squad-to-platoon level
> games, they may be at the wrong level, but the mechanics are brilliant and
> should give you plenty of ideas that can be adapted to games of any size.
> And of course, THW sells a wealth of period-specific sets.
>
> Tundamental questions to consider:
>
> 1. What period or genre do you want to play?
> 2. What level of game (squad-platoon-company-higher) do you want to play?
> 3. Do you want to play an existing game solo, or are you open to creating
> your own rules mashup?
>
> Solo games are a great activity for the harried dad. Also, as your kids get
> older, you can introduce them to the idea of cooperative gaming, rather
> than
> pure competitive games. My sons and I always had a great time with
> cooperative play computer games where we could work as a team, though they
> also enjoyed playing together against dad. Unfortunately (well, for me) my
> buddies are off to college now, so I'm gaming solo and only discovered solo
> miniatures gaming after they'd left. I wish I'd discovered THW games so we
> could have played some games with those GI Joes all those years ago!
>
> Welcome to the group!
>
> - Bob
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob,

      Would agree with your theory of variability, unpredictability as critical
for solo play but not sure where you went after that. I don't think you need to
experiment with different formations or rules to have variability.  I think your
scenarios or scenario generator can do that along with your rule set.  I have
been playing my prefered tactical ruleset unchanged for 18 months normally 3
times a month.  Maybe I am just slow to catch on.  (I have tweaked my campaign
rules however.)
      I am not saying you can't experiment or push design bounderies.  I think
solo is ideal for that.  I just don't think it is required.

Joe

--- In SoloWarGame@yahoogroups.com, "Seur D'Armadilleaux" <rstewart@...> wrote:
>
> This article started out as something different, and then developed into a new
direction, because of some off hand conversations with experienced Solo
Wargamers. As is often the case with buddies, the discussion wandered around
into some interesting topics and then migrated off into totally unrelated
fields. But here's the synopsis of 60 years of old heads who've played a lot of
Wargames, randomly talking about what they like in Solo Wargaming, and what
keeps them going strong, after several decades.
>
> Whether we are doing face-to-face Wargaming, or Solo Wargaming, it pays to sit
back every once and a while, just to review the kind of games we are playing,
and possibly think about what else we might like to explore. Most of the old
hands seem to agree that Solo Wargaming SHOULD be the place where we break new
ground, each and every time out.
>
> Sometimes we experience a break in play that seems to occur "naturally" (where
we put aside the little guys and wander off to do something else), and sometimes
we just have this itch, this sense of being a bit unhappy with what we are
doing, and the sense that we could be doing something a whole lot more exciting
with the little guys that we have. In either case, think of this as sort of a
call to Spring Cleaning. While we've presented a number of similar suggestions
over the years, this time we tried to take more of an overall Strategic Thinking
approach, to really stretch the limits of our Wargaming imagination to come up
with some fundamentally NEW options. Something FRESH.
>
> As a quick review, two of the really fundamental principals in Solo Wargaming
are Variability (not always doing the same thing or just minor variations on the
same old set of scenarios, over and over again) and Unpredictability (trying to
give "the other side" a mind of his own --- coming up with some dark and devious
counter play, that is both entertaining and challenging). Because that's most
often what keeps a veteran Solo Wargamer going --- facing down his own worst
nightmares.
>
> And we wanted to look at this within the context of the third element we want
to explore --- one aspect of the concept of running our own campaign --- like a
series of interwoven episodes that illuminate the whole. (Specifically,
displacement in Time and Interwoven story lines).
>
> Set New Precedents Every Time
> If we really want to keep our Wargaming efforts fresh, then try to figure out
some new twist, something we've never seen or come across or ever had to deal
with, each and every time out. Oh, it doesn't have to be so radical a divergence
that the whole effort is bound to fail, and we certainly don't have to throw our
whole (favorite) rule set into the trash. But let's consciously try to NOT do
the same ol' same ol' each and every session.
>
> That way Solo doesn't become an exercise in bookkeeping. So THIS time out,
maybe we optimize the cavalry component, or minimize the vets for this scenario.
Or maybe we can introduce some partisans, or spies, or inclement weather (like a
landslide or an avalanche) or a pesky journalist or two (that pop up at the
worst time and enquire about the most embarrassing subjects, and get into the
line of fire). Or how about introducing problems with logistics? How about
trying a fighting retreat, where we need to capitalize on each and every piece
of ground, figure out the lines of retreat, and severely husband our resources
(both the physical resources like ammo, and the personnel --- we want to punish
the pursuit with the least cost in our own troops lives).
>
> Who says that we "can't" try something, just because it's not covered in the
original rules? Add formation changes (or new formations like wedges or
rhomboids), or fire-and-retreat tactics, or a bit of some variable movement.
Even if our first efforts seem clumsy or give funny looking results, that's the
way we can carry out experiments to find what tweaking to the rules makes sense.
We can always "dial it back" so that the new variable doesn't take over and
alter the whole structure of the battle. Again, the idea is to keep things
interesting by injecting something like a 5% change. That's exactly how the rule
authors came up with their formulas --- they tested them in a couple of games,
got some useful feedback, and rewrote the tables so they were closer to what we
want to see as results.
>
> Formation changes are one of the most hotly debated parts of Wargaming rules.
Lots of rule sets let you set up either in depth or in width, but once deployed,
that's it (but most rules are written for a 1 to 4 hour face-to-face
tournament-style game, where Solo is usually a multiple of that). Or the rules
might severely restrict the ability of a FILE of light horse to go galloping
through a gap, and then to turn right or left into a RANK of attackers on the
enemy flanks (which Seleucids performed). But Solo Wargaming lets us explore
these kinds of formations (where prototypical) and a lot more.
>
> Keeping Up With The Latest Historical Research
> A recent Saga article shows us that the Seleucid pikes were capable of a wide
range of formations that are rarely accommodated in our ancient rule sets. "The
pike units were entirely capable of 1) doubling, 2) dividing, 3) wheeling and 4)
turning; 5) to lengthen or shorten the line, 6) to assume double front; and to
form 7) wedge, 8) hollow wedge, 9) column, 10) line and 11) square formations as
needed.  The enemies the Seleucids faced in the east, the Parthians included,
could do very little against the phalangites when they were supported by archers
and cavalry."  Under controlled conditions, it is really exciting to try some of
these in our Solo battles (and even in face-to-face "friendly" battles with
friends who are willing to experiment with the new data). (Taken from The Battle
of Magnesia in January 189 BC By Ilkka Syvanne in the on-line ezine, Saga 121)
>
> The whole point is, don't ever think of our current view of Military History
as being static and unchanging!
>
> Find a Divergent Path
> Occasionally stop when we come to a natural pause in the battle, and figure
out what are the most bizarre (but possible) changes-in-direction that could pop
up at THIS particular moment. For example, my key general figure has just been
thrown back by overwhelming enemy numbers. So I use a 20-sided die to figure out
if he is still game for the fray, with a 7 being the arbitrary median. And my
general rolls a rotten 4! Which I translate as "he falls back, and seems
unwilling to actively pursue the fight". But why has he fallen back? Is he also
suffering a concussion? Or has he just realized he isn't an unconquerable
superman? Or is he coming down with some long-term disease (like Napoleon was
reputed to have done at Waterloo)? Hammer out 6 options, and then dice for which
applies. Just remember, the idea here is (again) to add a touch of spice (just a
little bit) to the battle, and not to overpower the whole stew. We want to
explore something like a 5% variation on the "normal" Solo Wargaming themes.
>
> Now, this particular general has been a moody guy ANYWAY (that's just what
came up on the original character generation; he suffers from bad teeth), and
now it looks like he's about to go through another change of personality. So we
catalog some possibilities, and then we can dice for which one is accurate.
>
> 1 Blames his underlings for all his troubles. They were weak and let him down
> 2 Suspicious that someone is out to get him. Who set him up to take this
chance?
> 3 Sees hidden plots by his brother the king to discredit him
> 4 Thinks that someone is trying to get to him with bad spells; it's the
priesthood
> 5 Suffering from some brain disease that is making him unstable
>  6 The men are being rebellious, and he's going to teach them a lesson!
>
> Don't think this sort of exercise doesn't apply to face-to-face wargamers,
either. Many of the tournament competitors that we run into in conventions have
adopted a similar ruse from time to time, if only with the intent of psyching
out their opponents. They come out with remarks like: "Be careful, my astrologer
says the omens aren't good for you today". And as often as not, they have a
model of the omen-taker as part of their base camp, exploring some poor
chicken's gizzard!
>
> Interwoven Story Lines
> The other thing we wanted to explore was the whole concept of Campaigns that
are interwoven, but with some displacement in time. By that I mean, we may have
a perfectly brilliant little set of battles going on (let's say it's 1944 WWII
for an example). But WHAT brought these particular protagonists together in this
place and at this particular time? How did they develop their skills? To answer
these questions, we may want to step BACK in time to 1943 or even 1942, and play
out a sort of pre-campaign game, with some of the same combatants. That develops
the previous story.
>
> We can also assume that SOME of the men recorded their experiences in diaries
or later reminiscences, and THOSE can be part of a modern-day skirmish-level set
of games (like recovering the diary from Soviet towns, after the war). Or we can
trace how a fallen-man's diary gets passed along to someone else (or even
several people), and eventually gets saved and mailed to a relative (maybe even
from a Russian who finds the diary in a forlorn-hope last-ditch defense).
>
> If we want a complete change of pace, we can explore some air-combat with Yaks
versus Me 109's and at some point, show the intersection between some of the
planes and our (previously underway) campaign on the ground.
>
> The whole point is to push the envelope, and try something new. A steady diet
of even our favorite desert eventually becomes boring, so live a little, and
mix-it-up.
>
> Happy Solo Wargaming
>
> Bob
> Seur D'Armadilleaux
> The funny little guy in the fure-lined foxhole with all the crumpled-up papers
strewn around the outside
>

Lt Sposito is still having a hard time with his platoon.

http://platoonforward.blogspot.com

Enjoy

Joe

Hi all - this is going out to the Cave Wars, Lost Worlds, and Solo Wargames
Groups cos you never know who might be interested in these things...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27240370/ 
 
here's a webpage I came across today which tells that recent finds and analysis
shows that dogs go back in antiquity thousands of years before the generally
accepted "date".
Enjoy!
 
Squibzy




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:53 AM, James Squib <captain_squib@...>wrote:

> [...] here's a webpage I came across today which tells that recent finds
> and analysis shows that dogs go back in antiquity thousands of years before
> the generally accepted "date".
>

I'm sure dogs had humans domesticated long before we'd like to accept. :)

- Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]