Solitairing In Magnificent Style

Rebel brigades make a final rush for the Copse of Trees

Reviewing a solitaire wargame has special pitfalls. Oh, it's easier in one sense, because you don't have to find an opponent, but overall I think it's a challenge. Wargames are complex and subtle beasts by nature, and I can't tell you how many times I've played a game -- often for quite some time -- and found out I had been playing a rule incorrectly, missing a critical modifier or accidentally forgetting some key unit in the order of battle. Having an opponent sitting across the table who has a vested interest im making sure you don't miss anything that helps his side is a big help.

So with the caveat that I tried to play In Magnificent Style very, very correctly, it's always possible I missed something.

Solitaire wargames have tended to follow two basic models. One is the scripted adventure model of either/or paragraphs or other narrative tools that guide the player through a menu of choices. The classic example of this approach is Ambush!. The other approach is to create a framework where the player tries to accomplish some goal while stuff happens to him, generally using some sort of randomization mechanic. The classic example of this is B-17. In Magnificent Style is basically from this second approach, although a clever random events chit pull system give s it a little bot of the flavor of the paragraph system. This second approach works best when the player represents a side that had few courses of action available to it. In B-17 the player controls a single bomber that is part of a much larger formation of bombers. The player has no choice as to the target the tactics or the timing.

In Magnificent Style examines earlier example of a situation where there was plenty of valor, but few choices -- Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg.  The Rebels taking part also had no choice as to the target, the tactics or the timing. The game is meant to be the first i n a similar series of games to be called Death or Glory! that will depict other doomed assaults.

The components are excellent. The most notable are the counters, which are my first exposure to the new laser-cut (as opposed to the traditional die-cut) technique. They are thicker than what you typically find with die cut counters and the precision of the cut is stunning. I wouldn't be surprised to see this become the new industry standard. There's no need to trip or clip counters with these babies. They fall out easily and cleanly and the laser cutting allows for naturally rounded corners.

The counters include the nine brigades, several dozen markers and double-sided event chits. there are even a couple of tiny dice in their own little holder on the counter sheet.

The 11" by 17" map is on light card stock and in full color. Also in full color are a player auid sheet and a copiously illustrated 20 -page rule book.

The player's objective to to get the nine brigades involved in the charge across the killing ground and capture the Union positions on Cemetery Ridge.

The key mechanic is a "push-your-luck" system where, in turn, the player activates one of the brigades and rolls two dice, cross indexing the rolls on  a "Movement Events Results table. So  a roll on the black die of "2" and on the white die of "3" is read as a "2-3" (not totaled as a "5") and referenced on the chart. The most common result is "Advance" which allows the brigade to move forward one square and then activate again. Other results include Determined Advance, On to Washington and C'mon Boys which allow advances with enhancements and negative results such as Light Fire, Heavy Fire and even Rout! which involve losing strength or ground.

The Push-Your-Luck element comes into play because each time the player activates a brigade instead of rolling on the table, he can elect to "Regroup" which moves the brigade Rally Point forward and therefore mitigates many of the negative effects on the table.

Many of the results also have the player drawing a chit and applying either the Blue side (helping the Union) or the Gray side (helping the player). Some Blue chits, for example, cause extra hits on the rebel brgades, add obstacles or make generals casualties. The gray chits similarly give the Rebels temproary protections, cause losses to the Union side or allow rerolls.

The Player has five turns to complete the charge, so there's constant tension between deciding whether to continue the advance, risking losses and setbacks or stop and consolidate your ground.

I found the game pretty challenging in my first five plays, managing a couple of draws while losing three times. Like many games of its ilks, it's hard to say whether there's really a winning strategy to follow. It's difficult to strike a balance between advancing and  consolidating. Being too aggressive seems guaranteed to wreck a brigade, but being too cautious will see the attack running out of time. The six brigades of Pickett and Trimble's divisions have 10 squares to cover, so the average pace of the advance has to be at least 2 squares per turn. Pettigrew has even further to go, needing to cover 11 squares. Complicating things is the fact that the Emmitsburg Road and Union lines each need to be crossed and each represents an "obstacle" that can only be crossed on 13 of the 36 possible rolls. When you consider that 11 of the 36 possible rolls are negative results the scale of the challenge becomes clear. It appears to me that, on average, the Rebel brigades need to try to advance 3-4 squares each turn. before stopping.

Overall I think the game succeeds in its aim. It's an entertaining solitaire exercise that is challenging enough to bear repeated playings and creates a lot of in-game drama and narrative. I found the rules extremely clear and well-written -- a must for a solitaire game -- and reasonably historical. I don't think it would count as a simulation -- the Rebel charge has  a chance to succeed, after all -- but it is definitely a wargame. One thing i don't like about a solitaire game is if it starts to feel like a puzzle -- something with a solution. In Magnificent Style doesn't have a solution. There aren't really any tactics to employ. Like Pickett, the player has just one role -- decide whether to push forward or stop and dress ranks.

Pegasus Bridge -- a quick review

Pegasus Bridge was the issue game in Strategy & Tactics No. 122. That issue was notable because it includes an article by your truly entitled "The Other BEF" about the Brazilian Expeditionary Force, which served on the Italian front in World War II. (pp. 53-55).

The game is one of the few solitaire-by-design games published in S&T over the years, which is kind of funny because most issue games probably see more solitaire playing time than any other sort.

It uses a variation of the system first used in Raid on St. Nazaire, although it's a much less involved game than that previous effort.

The topic of the game is the coup de main by six-gliders full of British airborne troops who seized a pair of important bridges that guarded the eastern flank of the Normandy invasion on D-Day.

The game starts with the approach by the gliders, guided by die rolls, but they will generally land close enough to deposit enough assault troops to overwhelm the small bridge garrison. The larger part of the game is the subsequent defense of the bridge against German counterattacks. In the historical event the British held on, and in the game they will probably also succeed. It's not the most challenging solitaire game out there unless one uses the optional rules and reinforcements, which almost always add more Germans to the mix.

There are just seven pages of rules, so it's no more than a moderately complex wargame, although there are some gaps in the rules. It is a solitaire game, after all, so the player should feel free to fill in any gaps with whatever satisfies his opinion.

There are special rules to account for most of the colorful aspects of the fight, such as the ambush of the German commander in his staff car, the brewing up of the first German tank, the capture and use of a German antitiank gun, etc.

There aren't an awful lot of solitaire wargames, so if you're short on opponents and want something that's a little lighter fare than most of the AH/VG solitaire titles such as Ambush!, Tokyo Express or Patton's Best, then Pegasus Bridge is worth having.

Raid on St. Nazaire 66th anniversary

Today is the 66th anniversary of the Raid on St. Nazaire by British commandos.
The raid was noteworthy for being seaborne, led by a former U.S. lend-lease destroyer, the HMS Campbelltown, modified for the raid to resemble a German craft. The main objective of the raid was to disable the Normandie dock, the only dry dock along the coast of France big enough to hold the German battleship Tirpitz. The hope was that eliminating the only facility that could repair the battleship would deter the Germans from sending it on an Atlantic raid.
Led by the explosive-laden Campbelltown, which was to ram the dock, a force of several hundred commandos aboard a bunch of light craft were also to do as much extra damage as they could. In 1987 Avalon Hill published the solitaire game Raid on St. Nazaire which depicts the raid, rather well, too.
I'm surprised that there aren't more solitaire wargames on raiding operations. One of the hardest aspects of warfare to capture in wargames is the factor of surprise. In real life battles can erupt that one side had no idea was coming. Naturally the players in a wargame inherently know something is up, so real surprise is hard to achieve and usually the designer has to resort to various restrictions imposed by the rules.
Likewise, one of the factors that raiders seek to exploit is the disorganized response of the surprised defenders. In fact, in a rear area it's quite likely that there is no overall commander or chain of command to oversee the battle, so the defenders don't even have the means to act in concert.
A solitaire game like Raid on St. Nazaire can build this in. The only "organized" side is the one represented by the player, who can apply his planning to direct the actions of his troops, subject to the usual restrictions of time, space and military realities. The game system can capture the disjointed, unorganized response by the defenders. While outnumbering the raiders, the defenders don't have the means to bring that advantage to bear in the short time the raiders will give them.

Patton's Best -- personalizing war

Wargaming is a hobby. It's meant to be fun and educational It's not a profound investigation into the morality, effectiveness and politics of war, although it can give some insight in such study as well.

So I don't think it's inappropriate that wargaming concentrates on the more intellectually stimulating and emotionally satisfying aspects of military combat. Wargaming focuses on generals and strategy. It highlights honor, bravery and cleverness. It explores technology and tactics. It's about matching wits with wily opponents.

Wargaming pays relatively little attention to the death, suffering and tragedy that is such a large part of real-life war. There's nothing wrong with that.

In his groundbreaking Little Wars, H.G. Wells said:

"How much better is this amiable miniature then the Real Thing! Here is a homeopathic remedy for the imaginative strategist. Here is the premeditation, the thrill, the strain of accumulating victory or disaster -- and so smashed nor sanguinary bodies, no shattered fine buildings nor devastated country sides, no petty cruelties, none of that awful universal boredom and embitterment, that tiresome delay or stoppage or embarrassment of every gracious, bold, sweet and charming thing, that we who are old enough to remember a real modern war know to be the reality of belligerence."

So wargaming need make no apology for concentrating on the more attractive elements of military contests while de-emphasizing the ugly.

But there's also some value in being gently reminded that real war has real costs to actual human beings. We can be lectured thus, but the lesson derives more impact from being lived.

One interesting, if little-remarked aspect of solitaire games such as Patton's Best, B-17 and Ambush!, games that focus on the fates of individual soldiers is that they can remind us that those little cardboard counters, wooden blocks or plastic soldiers we maneuver represent real lives that were lived and lost once.

I think that, being a solitaire game, Patton's Best emphasizes that loss more than even a similarly focused two-player game such as Up Front!, Shell Shock! or Ace of Aces. As soon as you introduce a live opponent, the game's focus switches to the competitive aspect and the soldier's fates become secondary to the need to win. Even if you lose a character you have developed some affection for, it's in the cause of something bigger -- victory! In that sense the individual soldier is not all that different than the more faceless counter, block or generic figure in the larger scale wargames.

But with a solitaire wargame you're struggling against the "system." You're trying to defeat a faceless, soulless enemy. In that way it's actually rather more like actual modern combat than anything else. In modern war one rarely sees the enemy at all, let alone as an individual opponent.

Under these conditions I think losing your own guys in a game like Patton's Best, (or B-17 and Ambush) is more emotionally affecting than otherwise. Even if you "win" against the system, it's a somewhat empty-feeling if you lost ace gunner Bob "Deadeye" Smith that's been with M4 Sherman "Battle Baby" since the breakout at Avranches in July.

It's a small thing, really, almost trivial. But it does pull those who chose to reflect on it back from getting too carried away with the more glamorous aspects of military conflict.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

From In Flanders Fields by John McCrae