How to Play Wargames
How to Play Wargames Either player in the game has the option of speeding up the level of events. In most games each player takes his turn moving and attacking, and one player taking an inordinate amount of time doing so still does not deny the fact that one player can unilaterally increase the activity level of the game by doing more moving of the units and in particular by engaging in more combat since this forces the other player to respond.
It is inherently easier to increase the tempo of some games. These are games that have relatively bloodless Combat Results Tables. This means that the risk to an attacker is considerably less than in a game in which each combat produces some loss for somebody. You can still increase the tempo in a game with a deadly CRT. It simply takes more skill to do it without automatically losing too often.
Once you increase the tempo you gain an immediate advantage. First of all, the other player (assuming you have somewhat equal skills) doesn't know what's going on. He can only assume that you're up to something. If you're smart, you will be up to something and not just raising a little hell. As the tempo of play increases, as more attacks are made, as more units in contact move to and fro, the tactical situation is constantly changing.
At any given time you must, if you are on the ball, be aware of the tactical possibilities of all of your units. Who is in danger, who has opportunities sitting in front of him, where the opportunities or potential opportunities happen to be. As you increase the tempo of play you are changing all of this rapidly from turn to turn. What you are doing here to a large extent falls into the area of gaining a psychological advantage.
This is no different from any other human conflict situation. In fact, let's not confine it to humans, let's take animals in general. There's always some sort of pecking order instantly established in animal groups. One animal or the other will soon gain some sort of advantage. This can often work to the "advantaged" side's disadvantage. Some players, for example, allow themselves to assume the role of the "lesser player" and thus lull the "superior" player into a false sense of superiority until such time as the "lesser" player lowers the boom.
When Not To Follow The Script
Many players also have an overly slavish approach to what happened historically. If one side, for instance, was the defender historically, they assume that in playing the game on that event they must adopt a defensive attitude. Quite often this is just the opposite of what is the best for them in that situation. Again, a perfect example is any Waterloo game (there are many). In that situation, the Battle of Waterloo in June, 1815, the French were indeed attacking the British. But the British were not at that much of a disadvantage. They were capable of counterattacking and counterattack they originally did. In the game you can benefit by being even more aggressive than the British originally were. This is especially true if you are playing a sloppy French commander. I have seen many players become victims of their own overly literal reading of the historical accounts. If faced with an inept Napoleon, take advantage of the situation.
Shaping Your Play
Shaping is a technique in which you use things such as tempo, psychological advantage, tactics, technique and analysis to put the enemy in a position you want him in. This is a legitimate technique whether you are on the offense or the defense. What it comes down to is everything you do in the game is done with a specific objective in mind. You don't advance in a certain direction, you don't retreat in a certain direction unless this fits in with the plan you have devised. Many people are afraid of planning. They simply react, and this gives the other player an enormous advantage. Unless the other player is also reacting, which then produces a muddled and confused game quite similar to many historical battles fought with similar reactive attitudes by the original commanders.
To react without planning is to let the other player shape your game. When you get two players who are reacting it becomes a very interesting and unpredictable game, and many people prefer to play it this way. There is nothing wrong with that. However, if you want to obtain more control over the game and do things in a more systematic manner, you must come up with a plan, with objectives.
The most obvious objectives are fulfilling the games victory conditions in the game. Yet a plan consists of more than saying, "Well, these are the victory conditions and this is how I'm going to do it." You must work things out
in more detail. For example, in the Drive on Metz, the German player must determine which unit he is going to put where to defend what. Up in the north by Thionville he has to worry about the Americans putting a main thrust where there are so few German units. Thus, he must make some of his more mobile units available to be sent north very quickly. In the center, where the Germans are probably most vulnerable, they do have the advantage of terrain and fortification. But the fortifications, once lost, are almost impossible to retake. So particular care must be taken with regard to what is put in the center to hold these key areas.
Developing the ability to do this, to shape, takes time. All I am pointing out here is that the opportunity exists. Many players will find that they do not care to do that much work to play a game. However, I think most players would benefit from at least giving it a try because they would probably find, at the very least, a simpler version of some of the techniques I'm talking about here, which they can regularly apply without any perceived additional expenditure of energy. The object of all of this is not to turn the games into a lot of drudgery, but simply to point out things which players will probably eventually stumble upon themselves anyway. Many of the techniques we are talking about actually make the games more enjoyable. You feel less "lost" and you feel more in command of the situation (no pun intended.)
Special Problems with Multi-player Games
Most of the techniques dealt with above are applicable primarily to two-player games as well as the individual player activities of multi-player games. However, multi-player games do have a dynamic of their own which is not found in two-player games. When you get three or more people involved there is the possibility of coalition. Additionally, funny things happen in people's heads as they comprehend the fact that they are dealing with not one person but two or more. This usually has some interesting and rather predictable results.
For example, in the early 1970s I did a game for Avalon Hill called the Origins of World War II. This game was a multi-player game in which players assumed the roles of the various powers in Europe. Although the players were told that they had to stop Germany if they wanted to prevent World War II, each player had his own specific victory condition and invariably everybody would look out for himself and Germany would walk into all the adjacent countries and would usually end up winning the game anyway.
In Dungeons and Dragons and most other role-playing games a similar situation exists. It is understood, and it is often made explicit, that the players will gain more individually as well as a group if they cooperate with one another. Invariably, players will be more interested in looking out for their own personal gain at the expense of any possible
cooperation or planning ahead with other members of the team. I can offer no pat solutions to this. It seems to be an intrinsic element in human nature. People like to "do it themselves." This is one of the chief attractions of a role-playing game in which you are playing a role. In fact, the games might more appropriately be called role-building games.
You are building a role and by playing it out you give it substance. Cooperating with somebody else somewhat diminishes the individual in a game such as this. It is a bit more blatantly obvious in role-playing games, but it is an element present in any multiplayer game. People cooperate only briefly and only to confront and solve immediate problems. This gives multi-player games a great deal of flexibility. They can go on and on because no one person is going to gain a long-lasting advantage. It's more of a problem in role-playing games in which you are not really playing against the other players, but while this attitude exasperates the dungeon masters (or "game masters," who are running the game), the players don't seem to mind that much and take their licks like the heroes they are trying to be.
How
to Play Without an Opponent
