Creativity requires effort. After dealing with the demands of advancing adulthood, I often lack the capacity to meet my own expectations for hobby time, especially narrative scenario design. I compensate with tools like random name generators and published scenarios. Right now I’m exploring a new addition for my tool box: US military doctrine.
Army mission planning
Mission planning and scenario design each consider similar things. Who needs to accomplish what, and why? What facts about the terrain and each force’s capabilities will influence how the mission is accomplished? Real military planning is sober and consequential, but I bet the tools it employs could be borrowed to make wargame scenarios more interesting and fun.
Appendix A of Army Techniques Publication 3-21.8: Infantry Platoon and Squad describes Troop Leading Procedures (TLP) for platoon leaders, basically what to do when you receive higher-echelon orders. The mission analysis step of TLP offers a checklist for small unit leaders in the form of an acronym: METT-TC.
METT-TC stands for Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops, Time, and Civil Considerations. Stepping through each category helps cover blind spots from a tired brain, and can spark ideas for unique elements in your scenario. Let’s visit each topic in turn, summarizing the ATP, describing wargame applications, and providing examples from a recent game.
Hot mess warning
In this post I organize my experience into a structured framework, but also explore new ideas. I don’t distinguish which is which, so please approach the whole thing with a spirit of adventurous skepticism. And if you try any of this, please tell me how it goes!
Mission
Army Says
A mission is a task with a purpose. The ATP explains what this means to first-line leaders, but it boils down to the five W’s. Leaders restate the mission explaining who has to do what, where, when, and why.
Wargaming Application
I consider most of METT-TC optional for scenario design, but not this step. If you can explain what everyone’s little dudes are trying to accomplish and (especially) why, you can make any scenario meaningful. I usually go through these in whatever order makes ideas come easiest. Here are my thoughts on each W.
- Who. Name every soldier (for skirmish) and unit (for skirmish or larger). Use a random generator if you need to. Naming things makes us care about them.
- What. I tend to favor simple published scenarios for pick-up games. This usually means “stand somewhere better than your opponent can” or “carry things off the board better than your opponent can,” but I get to decide those places and things. It’s worth thinking up something you get excited about.
- Where. Even if I don’t make a detailed terrain layout ahead of a game, I try to think up and name a general location. This is guided and inspired by my terrain collection and the other W’s.
- When. For me this usually means the scenario’s place on a timeline relative to other fictional events, e.g., “this skirmish happens early in the War of Coins,” or “this happens right before the scenario I’m planning for Sunday.”
- Why. The Why question sets apart narrative gaming from other approaches and makes it my favorite. Now something is at stake, and we care which group of little toy soldiers is better at standing in a certain spot. I also like to use Why to imply something about the wider background or events happening “off screen,” stitching the scenario into a broader tapestry.
Mission Example
Here is a mission statement from a recent game of Space Weirdos. We played the book scenario called Objectively Standard Scenario – as vanilla as you can find.
Response Team Theta seize and defend shield generator node 4883-A.209 in Cloister GS-568-8B to assist defense against imminent raid vicinity Munitorum staging point S-7116. Raid expected within 15 minutes.
Enemy / Troops Available
Army Says
The ATP correctly assigns enemies and one’s own troops to separate categories. Knowledge of enemy capabilities and vulnerabilities, most likely and most dangerous courses of action, and other factors are considered. Friendly troop leadership, morale, and capabilities are likewise evaluated.
Wargaming Application
I collapsed these categories into one, since the scenario is written for both players to have fun. I think about providing opportunities for each force to do the thing it is good at. Let the sneaky ambushers be the attacker. Give the tank a decent field of fire and the infantry something to hide behind. Also consider fatigue and morale at the outset of the fight. Are your little soldiers tired and hungry?
Troops Example
My friend and I played Space Weirdos over a lunch hour and kept things small and simple. I knew my friend was bringing soul-snatcher cultists who would be fast and hard-hitting, but fragile. I brought terrain with plenty of columns to jump out from, and a higher central platform to climb.
I fielded an inquisition strike team, more elite in my imagination than I had the points budget to afford. I assigned them lower abilities, explaining that they were tired and off-balance running from threat to threat.
Terrain and Weather
Army Says
Terrain is critical to military operations, so it’s no surprise the topic is covered extensively in doctrine. Fortunately, a summary checklist within the checklist can help remember it all: OAKOC.
- Obstacles
- Avenues of approach
- Key terrain
- Observation and fields of fire
- Cover and concealment
Wargaming Application
Experienced wargamers probably consider OAKOC factors instinctively, but a checklist is always handy to catch omissions and blunders. After selecting terrain pieces based on theme and mood, I usually arrange them intuitively. Then, I walk around the table and check for each item on the OAKOC list, stooping down to “ground level” and adjusting things. It’s the same loop as painting a mini or drafting a blog post: express, observe, modify.
I often neglect weather in my scenarios, a tradition I will continue in this post. I have resolved to consider the five military aspects of weather in future games.
Terrain Example
Our scenario featured three shield generator nodes along the center line as objectives. The central node sat on the raised central platform.
For simplicity, the board was symmetrical across the center point, offering each side an arch on one side and a door on the other. The doors could be opened or closed at the cost of two of a model’s actions.
Below are the same images labelled with OAKOC considerations. The labels are not exhaustive; the point is that all factors were accounted for in the terrain set up.
Terrain set up deserves its own post. Should I write one? Do you have a favorite existing source of advice for this I should know about?
Time
Army Says
The doctrine discusses the importance of fitting your own mission planning and execution into the timeline of higher headquarters. Honestly, there isn’t much for miniatures wargamers, so I’ll borrow this section to describe a time-related useful idea.
Wargaming Application
We usually describe scenario time in rounds or turns, but sometimes now I borrow a trick from Rogue Hammer and roll a d6 after each turn to see how many minutes have passed. Special events, e.g., sunrise, nightfall, volcano eruption, etc., or scenario ends could occur after a chosen number of minutes.
To specify a time limit, decide how many turns should elapse on average, and multiply that number by 3.5 (e.g., 14 minutes for 4 turns). Alternatively (I haven’t tried this yet), roll a number of d6’s equal to the average number of turns you want, then sum the result.
Time Example
This could be especially fun for asymmetrical scenarios. Maybe one side is holding out a desperate defense against a superior enemy force, but close air support is inbound for a strafing run in 4 minutes. Maybe a team of infiltrators triggered an alarm but still needs 5 minutes to rig the explosives before attempting to escape.
Civil Considerations
Army Says
The ATP spends many words on the topic, even introducing another acronym, ASCOPE. The gist is, leaders should account for civilians and their infrastructure when planning ops.
Wargaming Application
I can imagine organizing a whole campaign around dissident guerillas trying to influence civilian leaders and institutions. In a scenario, you could offer optional actions that provide an advantage for that fight, but damage your faction’s esteem with civilians.
I plan to experiment with this. I want to try designating certain terrain pieces as culturally significant. Missed shots with certain weapons could harm the terrain, resulting in narrative or campaign repercussions.
Civil Considerations Example
What if the two statues at the center of the terrain example presented an additional scenario objective? For example, each team may declare a major victory only if it seizes the most objectives and avoids damaging the statues. This would encourage a big melee pile at the center objective, something I always like to see in a stand-back-and-shoot sci fi game.
Wrap-up
This post discussed using Mission, Enemy, Troops, Time, and Civil Considerations as a checklist for scenario design. Though I would rarely incorporate the entire list in a wargame scenario, the availability of all these factors for review gives me a boost when I’m tired and don’t know where to start.
What do you think? Do you agree this is a useful framework? Am I overcomplicating the process of playing with our toys? I’d love to chat about it in the comments.
Your comment sustains me