Vom Kriege Napoleonic Tabletop Wargaming

This battle is based on the 'The Weak Flank' scenario from 'Programmed Wargame Scenarios' by C.S Grant. The battle is set in 1809. The French have deployed in a defensive position on a ridge facing a threat from the Southeast. They have only thin protection on their right flank, to the West, and expect the Austrian attack to be frontal. However, the Austrians moved up on the previous evening and has a small screening force to the Southeast. During the night the Austrian main force has moved round to the West and are prepared to launch an attack on the French weak flank. The Austrians also have a 25% superiority in numbers. I am playing both sides as the programmed opponent and using my own Vom Kriege rules. The character of each commander is important in this scenario and each is rolled for. The French overall commander is cautious with a right flank infantry Division (deliberate), a left flank infantry Division (cautious), a right flank heavy cavalry Division (deliber...

This battle is based on the 'Holding Action' scenario from 'Programmed Wargame Scenarios' by C.S Grant. The battle is set in 1812 with the Russians tasked with delaying the advancing, and so far victorious French forces. The Russians have chosen to fight a holding action using a hilly area to form the basis of the delaying action. The French on the other hand is in the full flush of victory and is pressing down the major route brushing all opposition aside in an endeavour to strike at the heart of the Russian army and country before they have an opportunity to rally and prepare themselves. The Russian setup with a Division on each hill and the central town garrisoned. Jagers occupy the woods north of the stream. The heavy cavalry form the reserve. The French are expected to arrive along the road from the north-west. I'm using the programmed responses for both sides from the 'Programmed Wargame Scenarios' book and modified  Age of Eagles rules . The Russians ...

Battle report for another Programmed Wargame Scenarios battle using the Broken Ground scenario and modified Age of Eagles rules . The map is made up of the following rolled sections.

 This is my first solo battle using Scenario 1 - Hill Line Defence from Programmed Wargame Scenarios (Charles S. Grant). I am also using a scaled down version of Age of Eagles where 1"=60 yards and each infantry stand=180 men. Terrain Setup Rolling for the terrain setup gave the following left, centre and right sections. The table setup is shown above with the hill line at the top half of the table.

I played out the Smoliani scenario using a programmed opponent for the Russian side. I ended up modifying the approach as the game progressed and I learnt what worked and what didn't. Here is a summary of those learnings. The introduction of written orders, and the constraints they impose, was a key element of the programmed opponent implementation. The written command orders also gave a more realistic period 'feel' to the game, mitigating the player's 'god-like' overview of the battle. The factors influencing what order options are available to each command increased substantially as the game progresses. It became clear that trying to set all these options up front wouldn't work very well. The approach I eventually landed on was to limit command order changes to 1 per turn and randomly select from the 2 or 3 most likely options given the game situation. This appeared to work quite well, and gave enough uncertainty that I didn't feel like I was unneccess...

During the retreat from Moscow, Victor was ordered to take the bridges over the Lukomlia River to ensure safe passage for the main French army to the south. Wittgenstein must hold the bridges and capture Smoliani to deny the French a line of march to the south (Senno). Note: I didn't have enough Russian or French units for this scenario and have substituted the Opolchenie with Austrian figures. I'm also using Bavarians to cover the Berg and Baden brigades.

With a written order system proposed in the rules, I have now drafted a high level programmed opponent to manage the command orders for one side in a battle. The rules will allow for the implementation of a programmed opponent for solo play. The programmed opponent sets the command orders for each command. The programmed opponent relies on the player setting likely order options based on a reasonable assessment of the current situation for that command. The player will still need to manage the tactical implementation of these command orders through unit orders. When a command has the initiative, a command order check is undertaken. At the start of the game, a command order check is done on every command to allocate starting orders. During subsequent turns, a command order check is done on each command until a change in orders is triggered. Only 1 change of orders can be made by the programmed opponent each turn. Once a command has new orders, no other command checks are done for that t...

In the quest for simple, easy to use and fast playing rules, I've avoided written orders. I also mainly play solo and written rules feel like they are unnecessary. However, after many solo games with my rules I think that there is a case to be made for written orders. The pre-planning that appeared to be an important aspect of most battles is missing, and there is a temptation to instantly respond to changing battlefield situations as if each commander had omniscient knowledge of the battlefield positions. The other trigger for considering written orders came when I started to look at how to incorporate a programmed opponent when playing solo. It became apparent that an AI system would work much better with an overall battle plan. A typical army commander would set orders at the start of a battle for each division or brigade under his command. Changes in orders could be made but the fog of war and the vagaries of delivering and interpretting orders could often result in unintended ...