‘Deterministic’ OHW Rules-As-Written (RAW) Playtest

My first round of OHW playtesting left me with a desire to amend specific aspects of OHW’s RAW. The last few posts were basically preliminary notes in preparation to do just that. However, I think there’s one more, necessary step before I commit to the changes I’ve written so far: more playtesting! I want to really cut down the changes down to the minimum to stay as close to the OHW spirit as possible. So, I want to be sure I fully understand – not the rules, which are extremely simple, but – their interplay and emerging features, which I think are the important part.

I will use Horse & Musket era rules since I think they’re the ones needing the fewest changes to provide tactically interesting and historically-flavored games. I will play several of the scenarios solo (damned pandemic). And I will play diceless, i.e. in a completely deterministic fashion. I’ll try to explain both how and why… but perhaps trying to be just a tad more humble than the Man Himself:

 

"Military science consists in first computing all the probabilities, and then, evaluate precisely, with a nearly mathematical method, what is the share of chance... Chance is a mystery for lowly minds, and it becomes a real thing for superior men." [Napoleon]

 ...ok, that sounded a bit snooty from you Bonnie, but modesty is not a typical curricular skill for Emperors after all.

How to play deterministic OHW

It’s very simple. I will use my hex mod (see this post) instead of free movement, and record the average expected hits of an attack (see this post) instead of rolling dice. For example, a standard infantry attack will inflict 3.50 hits on the target; a cavalry charge on the flank 11.00 hits. That’s it. Everything else will be as in the RAW.

OK, but… why?

I think there are two main styles of solo playing, and I usually refer to them as ‘playing to be challenged’ and ‘playing to learn’. The first one tries to recreate the same experience of a face-to-face game without an actual opponent, presenting a genuine tactical challenge via methods involving randomization, hidden information and/or programmed opponents. The second one is aimed at learning something new from the game, regardless of whether it’s ‘fair’ or ‘fun’ in the traditional sense; this basically just involves the solo player honestly pursuing the best interests of both sides at the same time. The latter approach is the one I actually prefer, and is described perfectly here and here.

My goals for OHW solo play are strictly in the ‘playing to learn’ camp, as I’d like to learn:

·         Implications of the rules: which tactics do they encourage? Are those historical or not? Which historical battlefield behavior is not represented?

·         Are the various unit types balanced? Is some type of unit generally less useful than others?

·         Is the scenario balanced?

·         What is the best Course Of Action for both sides in this scenario? How would a programmed opponent work?

In my view – and for the above goals only – randomization is just added noise. Randomization is surely fun in face to face battles or in ‘challenge’ solo games, where every die roll can dynamically change the situation. But when playing to learn, I think the best pieces of information you can come off with are the average/expected outcomes rather than the specific outcomes of a given randomization sequence. It’s like playing a large number of randomized games and averaging them, if you want. This does turn the game into a somewhat insipid chess-like version of itself, of course; but it serves the ‘learning’ goal very well.

Very basic example of randomless analysis: one-on-one engagement of line infantry units in the RAW

This is what would happen in deterministic OHW if a line infantry unit decided to attack another one (say it’s 15” away, above shooting range; red is the attacker).

One-on-one infantry engagement, average outcome per turn
Turn	Avg Hits on Red unit	Avg Hits on Blue unit
Red 1	(red moves into range…)	(…and cannot fire)
Blue 1	3.5 (blue shoots)	0
Red 2	3.5	3.5 (red shoots)
Blue 2	7.0	3.5
Red3	7.0	7.0
Blue 3	10.5	7.0
Red 4	10.5	10.5
Blue 4	14.0	10.5
Red 5	14.0	14.0
Blue 5	Eliminated	14.0

 This means that per the RAW, 1:1 infantry engagements are long, costly and risky.

Long: they need 5 turns on average to reach a decisive outcome.
Costly: the expected outcome is to leave the defending unit almost completely spent at the cost of one attacking unit. It’s almost like a piece exchange in chess.
Risky: they slightly favor the defender because it shoots first; but the advantage is small, making attacker victories possible.

[Side Note - it’s of course possible to compute just how risky it is for both opponents, when playing with dice… the results largely justify the ‘deterministic’ solo approach, in the sense that the distribution of outcomes as per the RAW won’t be that ‘dicey’ or ‘random’ after all. The real turning point seems to be Turn 4, in which you usually reach an equal chance of surviving or being destroyed. If you reach turn 4 in better shape than your opponent you should probably press forward… If not, there is no great dishonor in a quick tactical reassessment].

One-on-one infantry engagement, chance of elimination
Number of 1d6 attacks received	Per turn	Cumulative
1	0%	0%
2	0%	0%
3	9.26%	9.26%
4	44.37%	49.52% (turning point!)
5	77.85%	87.68%
6	93.92%	98.65%
7	98.79%	99.93%

 All things considered however, the tactical lesson here seems to be “avoid 1:1 engagement at all costs if possible”. How does that sound, Nappy?

 "The Art of War consists in the following: […] you concentrate more troops than your enemy on the point where you attack, or on the point where you are attacked. But this art cannot be learned in the books, or acquired as a habit; it is a way of acting which is the proper genius for war." [Napoleon]

…Well Bonnie, I can't possibly argue with someone in that attire. If you excuse my dumbness however - that’s more easily said than done, since I’ve found that this 'concentrating troops' thing is not that trivial after all. Guess it means I’m not a ‘proper genius for war’, huh?

The next few posts will be AARs of OHW scenarios played as above. Au revoir!