"Playing Solo WW2 Naval Games" Topic

Hello, I play a WW2 naval game solo using 1/6000 miniatures. I am trying to make a solo game interesting but am finding it hard to do so. Instead of playing the game out as a scenario simulation (which is what I'm doing now) I am thinking about picking one side for myself and using a decision matrix to have a built in AI for the opposing side. Does anyone have suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

I have been contemplating the same thing myself.

What I have been considering is a home made deck of cards with each ship represented by one of the cards.

Each ship or squadron from each side has a single card within the deck.

As each card is drawn the ship or even squadron takes its actions for the turn.

You would then play out the orders for those ships/squadrons to the best of your ability regardless of which side has the action.

I have also been trying to come up with a solo system for hidden sub movement… still working on it, but the tests I have done have been ok so far.

For subs at least I wouldn't worry about the movement pre-attack, just post attack. I would roll a die each turn to determine when the sub attacks, then after that you would randomly place the sub within attack parameters and you would need a random die matrix to determine movement while the destroyers.

I am thinking of a system whereby each side starts the battle with a standing set of orders, and then when targets are acquired the AI goes to a chart to see how they react, and the player has to roll an initiative die roll to change orders according to what the player wants. If anyone is familiar with 2-Hour Wargames, I am thinking something like their reaction system but for ships.

perhaps the OOP game Tokyo Express could be used as a basis for what you want to do. check out boardgamegeek.com for the rules.

This is a first go at this although I have played many solo naval games.

It would seem that the options to a commander are limited to "close range", "maintain range", or "open range".

These options could be given percentage chances modified by what is known about the nearest enemy task force. Are the more lightly armed? Torpedo capable? Heavily armored?

An added plus to this approach would be that you can factor in some historical factors that modern gamers would not.

For example the USN was not aware of the capabilities of the IJN Long Lance, and neither the USN nor Kriegsmarine torpedoes were of much use early on.

The NPC commander could be made to take these factors into, or properly, out of account. USN forces would close for better gunnery despite risk of torpdoes. USN and KM destroyers would close for torpedo action even though they might be better off using their guns and so on.

Many possibilities here.

Do let us know how you get on please.

I've been looking at the Tokyo Express rules and they have some interesting points in there about the direction the enemy would turn depending on their range band. My question for the more nautically inclined is what would WW2 Naval combat doctrine dictate when within gunnery range of an acquired hostile target?

I should mention that I play GQ3 but this would be applicable to any ruleset.

So first off, I am thinking that the game will start with each side having a set of orders as defined by the scenario.

The player and AI can only change order once they have an acquired enemy target within gun range.

For the player to change course they have to roll a 3+ (modified for army and period, so USN in 41/42 would be 4+ but 3+ in 43).

The AI moves accordingly:
Long Range (10k yards +) Roll a D12:
1-4: Maintain course
7-8: Present starboard broadside to enemy
9-10: Present port broadside to enemy
11-12: Change course towards enemy

With similar charts for med and close range and different charts for night, day and modifiers for whether the enemy has heavier equipment or not.

Then would have to have target priorities for shooting, torpedoes, etc.

Here is what I came up with, this was inspired by the Tokyo Express rules, and I am using their movement template. I tried a game last night and it worked quite well actually:

Ranges

Defined as the distance between the respective capital ships of each force
Long >100cm (20,000 yards)
Medium 50-99cm (10,000 – 19,999 yards)
Short 25-50cm (5,000-10,000 yards)
Point Blank <25cm (5,000 yards)

Force Strength Definition

Light Force: CL's and DD's only.
Medium Force: 1 x CA, with CL and DD, no BB's.
Heavy Force: minimum 2 x CA, or any BB, CV.

Movement Rules

Both sides start with a set of course, bearing and speed that cannot be changed until an enemy target has been Acquired.

AI Movement Rules
Place the movement template on top of the closest enemy capital ship. Line up the template with the bearing of the capital ship. Determine the range and band which the AI capital ship occupies. Roll a D12 dice according to the template and move the AI capital ship according to the directions of the template, the red is for fighting enemies of equal or lower Force Strength, the blue is for fighting a heavier formation. Perform minimum move first and end move in the direction indicated on the template, then complete the move with the total knots remaining. Each arrow indicates a 60 degree turn arc.
A roll of 1 indicates no change to the bearing or speed. An 11 means maintain current bearing but reduce speed by 5 knots, 12 means increase speed by 5 knots.

Player Movement
In order to change course, bearing or speed the player must past a command test. Typically 3+ on a D6, although this can change for a given scenario (ie: 1942 USN in night time need 4+).

Torpedo Rules
AI Torpedo Rules:
• They never fire at Long range.
• They never fire at Enemy DD's at Short range.
• If there's an eligible target at Short range, roll a dice they will fire on a 4+ on a D6.
• They must fire at any eligible target non DD target at Point Blank range.
• No more than two ships fire at each target. A ship will hold its fire rather than attack a target which is being attacked by two other ships.

Procedure
1. Select the single closest eligible target.
2. If several equally close targets are eligible select the largest.
3. Player determines the band that corresponds to players own current location of target ship, and the current bearing of the player's ship. They mark the turn in which the torpedo is fired. When the torpedo has travelled long enough to potentially reach its target the player rolls a dice to see which band the torpedo was actually fired in according to a D6 roll: 1-2 fire at the original band, 3-4 shift one band in the original bearing of target, 5-6 shift two bands in the original bearing of the target.

Player Torpedo Rules
Player decides the band to fire his own torpedos, then rolls a D6, 1-2 shift one band to the right, 3-4 torpedo is fired in the selected band, 5-6 shift one band to the left.

Shooting Rules

AI Shooting Priorities
Select any eligible AI attacking ship and follow this procedure:
1. Each AI ship fires at a non-sinking ship of the same weight class if possible. Thus, a BB or CA must fire against a heavy ship if one is within range; a CL or DD must fire against a light ship if possible. If no target of the appropriate weight class is possible, a ship fires at the closest non-sinking target.
2. Among ships of the appropriate weight class, a ship fires at the closest possible target.
3. If there are several targets of the same weight class equally close, select an enemy that has previously not been targeted.
4. If there is still a choice, decide randomly with a D6.

Player Shooting Priorities
Player nominates their own targets,, if the players wants to switch targets they must pass a command test (3+ or as per scenario setup).

Have you considered the Feldmachink?

link

Naval version prototype:

link

Hope this helps.

We're talking about a solo game, so hidden movements don't really make sense. But thank you for posting the idea.

JJMicromegas,

I like what you have posted above, and want to apologize for not commenting sooner.

Trying to stay on course with another project at the mo, and so trying to ignore non-French and Indian war things for a bit : (

Once that is done I will give these a go.

Thanks for posting your thoughts.

Bump, to see if M C LeSingeDew has had an opprtunity to comment? I'm all ears for any solo naval rules ideas, especially centered around GQ III or campaigns in general.

Thanks!

Blah! I have been caught out!!

Forgot all about this and indeed have played some naval games in the ensuing time period. Shame on me.

Will print them out this time and have a go!

(working on Napoleonic land combat now too but this will give me an excuse to put on some naval games!)

EDIT:Printed! and thanks for the reminder : )

Hello!

Played a Denmark Straights scenario four times this morning. Each time alternating playing as the RN and KM. The first game used Battle Stations! Battle Stations! and the other three used All At Sea: World War 2.

I chose these rules because they both give a fast game and I wanted to get as many plays in as I could.

Overall the system works well.

However there are some areas that could use tweaking.

1. Immunity Zones. The system makes no account of penetration. Often the AI would move out of the best range from which to damage the target. From the stand point of realism one can easily dismiss the notion that a commander would be able to so finely control the engagement range although he certainly would have been schooled to do so. From a game perspective it is a bit worse as any player familiar with a given set of rules would try to maintain a distance from an enemy force based on the risk of damage to oneself vs. the chance of significantly damaging the enemy.

This could easily be entered into the above system by making a roll just as the player would (3+) to negate a move that would take the AI ship out of its sweet spot.

2. No rules to dictate when to disengage. In a solo game of course this is no bad thing as the player is making decisions for both sides. Still it might be nice to enter this into the AI. Clearly a ship which has lost its ability to harm the enemy should break off. No rule needed. Other than that though?

In case anyone is curious…

I broke off the game of Battle Stations! Battle Stations! as the two sides were unable to damage each other for quite a spell (lucky saving rolls) and I got bored with it : ) IT was good for testing the AI movement rules though as without either side taking damage there was a lot of maneuver. I played the RN in this game.

The three games of All At Sea: World War II all ended in KM victory, which is a bit odd as there is nothing in the rules that should lead to such a one sided outcome. As it happened I played the RN once and KM twice.

In all three games PoW got knocked out of action early as fires rendered her staying in the fight too dangerous and eventually Hood wound up listing and on fire yet able to withdraw. Bismarck received varied damage that would have made the rest of her sortie difficult, while Prinz Eugen escaped damage except in the AI controlled game where she charged Hood even though PE was listing and aflame from stem to stern! Very Gotterdamerung of her and indeed. As it happened Bismarck did for Hood before Hood's secondaries could do for PE.

Thanks MCLSW! I'm just starting to get back into naval gaming after 35 years of gaming everything but, and so don't have my sea legs yet. I used to use the original GQ, and still have the rules and even the turn template, but opted to get the latest GQ III. I like JJMicromegas' rules and your suggestions. Once I get a few test games under my belt, I may add some solo ideas of my own.

Add to your AI that the captains/admirals will seek to close/open the range to maximize their weapons attack capabilities, and/or their armor protection (note – those can contradict one another, so you will need to decide if offense over-rides defense in those situations).

Also, for breaking off, you can add in rules for once a certain level of damage is sustained by vessels, number of vessels lost in a squadron, reduction in speed and maneuvering ability, etc.

Also, it's probably good to have an operational, or strategic overview of what tactics the sides want to use, e.g. British – attack whenever they can, without regard to losses; German – preserve the fleet in being, so don't unduly risk damage or losses to own vessels, etc.

Along with the above, you can then have varying degrees of aggressiveness, passiveness, or a balanced approach, e.g. closing with the enemy, trying to maintain distance, opening range with the enemy, etc. This will be dictated somewhat by the strategic, or operational level goals, but also by the current circumstances, and enemy forces encountered.

IIRC the "Jutland" game from Avalon Hill had an interesting solo option. Basically, you produced five different plans for the enemy fleet (using a hex map of the North Sea), flipped them over and picked one at random. Then you made your own plan and had meeting engagements where the fleets' paths crossed.

I agree with Murvihill's idea.

In a table top game without hidden movement, you know some things that a real commander wouldn't know. You know the enemies order of battle, where they are, what they are doing and from all this you can figure out their strategy and immediately make the moves to counter or exploit what you see.

An interesting solo game, should then take this intellegence away. You should see a limited amount of the enemy's force and actions, and not know (or have to guess) why he is doing things and what might come next. He might even do something stupid because of his faulty guess about your actions.

I suggest starting the game with your force meeting a single contact of the enemy. The enemy's actions will then follow blindly chosen, face-down 3x5 cards that are randomly selected, that define his force, objectives, locations and sailing directions. You will use only one of this stacks in the game, but you won't know which one.

Before the start of the game, you make up several stacks of shuffled 3x5 cards that will be randomly selected. Some general mission should be assigned and known to "both" sides.

The first enemy card must be the "contact with the screening force card". It contains the screening force composition, it's initial course and it's initial reaction (attack, retreat, maintain range, or the like). Also, do a die roll to see who spots whom first, and whether both or just one side gets to fire on this turn.

After the first move would be two D6 rolls to see how many turns untill the next stack is picked. [1,2;;;3,4;;5,6] = 1,2, or 3 turns of delay.

Each new stack would have an unknown sequence of cards with the force composition, direction of entry and some action instruction. It might also include that force's "hidden-ness value", that is how close it can come (in mm) before being spotted and how close it can come to your force before spotting it.

After the first new stack comes in, then again do the D6 rolls to see how many turns untill the next stack is picked. [1,2;;;3,4;;5,6] = 1,2, or 3 turns of delay, then likewise. how many new forces arrive (cards are released).

Somewhere in each stack you might have some wildcard, with a mission statement or change in mission statement.

There is enough uncertainty in this to be entertaining. An alternative is to be as old as me, so that you don't remember what you just did. Every new minute is a new surprise.

Interesting stuff. I always thought the AI in Toyko Express was very good. If you guys can figure out the tactical AI I am working on a solitaire campaign system for Destroyer actions based on the "Forward" system that I have done for the land and air. I am calling it Flotilla Forward. I hope to have it done in the next year or so.

Cheers

Joe

What would be desirable to recreate is the suspense of the first encounter in detecting the approach of the enemy, then determining the composition of their force and strength relative to your own. Battle narratives of the Solomon battles (Crenshaw, Hornfischer) and of Otranto (Halpern) and Heligoland Bight (Massie) are personal favorites. Add to that the involuntary movement / breaking of formation generated by steering or other damage, or faltering will of the commander, and the precisely controlled movement of the ships is something that rarely lasted long in battle.

Mal Wright has a thoroughly designed random encounter scheme for convoy-submarine games.

A recent tmp tread I can't resurrect had a gamer describe using 1/1200 models to depict the squadron in formation and keeping track of the map positions from aturn to turn using a computer spreadsheet and plot.

The Two Hour Wargames reaction mechanism in solo/same side mode seems to have some potential to recreate the uncertain behavior of the opposing fleet.

Somehow a combination of these ideas plus the excellent ideas above could form an excellent solo naval game if I could figure it out.

Any thoughts on Campaign solo rules?

Pvt641

For Coastal forces up to Destroyers, Flotilla Forward is designed for solo players. You will guide your Flotilla of 6 ships through the war gaining experience.
You will roll up your mission, execute it as best you can with random events thrown in and then deal with personalities back in port. Want your ships fixed rapidly? Don't tick off the maintenence chief.

Cheers

Joe

Where can you find Flotilla Forward?

PVT 641

No where yet; I won't release it until it is great! It should be ready by spring. If you are familiar with Squadron Forward which is my air campaign game published by Too Fat Lardies you should get the idea. Otherwise if you go to "Eastern Convoy" which I posted in July on my blog that will give you a taste as well:
platoonforward.blogspot.com
Any questions just ask.

Cheers

Joe

Thanks Joe!