by RockyMountainNavy, 28 September 2026
You seen this one before? https://sts-gamer.itch.io/strife-the-scalable-wargame — Brant G, Commander/Editorial Director, Armchair Dragoons
When Regimental Commander Brant points out a wargame to me, it usually is a sign that he is interested in some commentary. Strife: The Scaleable Wargame is an ambitious effort but the rules—still technically in playtest—currently deliver a game built on questionable design assumptions and interpretations of warfare as well as unevenly constructed game mechanisms.
Designed by Shane Aquero (STS_Gamer on https://sts-gamer.itch.io), Strife: The Scaleable Wargame is a free downloadable-pdf watermarked “PLAYTEST.” My downloaded version is dated 13 April 2026. Here is Aguero’s pitch-page on the website:
The text inside the rulebook is slightly different:
Strife is what happens when your PCs are in over their head. Are your PCs running from cybernetic assassins in a blacked out urban warzone? Do you need to simulate boarding actions for piracy in the Age of Sail? Do you need a narrative combat system as background for competing organized crime families? Recreating the Battle of the Bulge? Fleet actions in off the Shoulder of Orion? All of these are battles for you to fight and win with Strife, the Roleplaying Wargame.
Occupying the space between traditional roleplaying games and wargames, Strife allows your PCs to become the commanders of their troops and become responsible for every aspect of the war. No longer do PCs have to be content with a small corner of the battlefield when Strife allows PCs to master the entire war. Designed to be flexible in both scale and detail, Strife is made to simulate dungeon crawls, platoon battles in triple canopy jungle, campaigns between hundreds of thousands of troops lasting months and fleet actions over light seconds of space.
System agnostic, Strife can be used with any RPG or used as an alternative ruleset for any skirmish or wargame. This complementary game system is accomplished by having each layer of the game build upon previous layers. The simulation builds on the wargame, which builds on the narrative tool. There are also multiple options that are available to expand upon the gameplay for more detail or alternative mechanics. This array of tools is provided allow the GM to have as much, or as little detail as desired.
The subtitle used in Aguero’s pitch, “the Roleplaying Wargame,” makes Strife sound like this is a set of rules firmly planted in the tabletop RPG community. The “Core Concepts” section of Strife, however, paints a different picture. The very first section of the Core Concepts begins with, “This game is designed as 1) a standalone wargame, and 2) a mass combat system for roleplaying games” (p. 5). Aguero’s efforts to bridge two grognard gaming communities—wargamers and players of roleplaying games—is my first caution flag. For myself, I see wargames as more in the realm of “conflict simulations” whereas I see roleplaying games (RPG) as a narrative storytelling medium. While some wargames certainly can create a narrative in play I am not sold on the assertion made by some that an RPG makes for a good combat simulation. A case in point is Star Wars: Saga Edition which I see as basically a sci-fi version of early Dungeons & Dragons 4E which is criticized by some as little more than a glorified skirmish wargame dressed up as an RPG.
[Savvy readers of The Armchair Dragoons likely will recall that I am a proponent of “Adventure Wargames;” that is, wargames with elements of RPGs. For example, see “Unforgettable adventures in Forgotten Ruin: The Adventure Wargame” from May 2025. Up front, I want to clarify that I do NOT see Strife as an Adventure Wargame—nor even a complete game—but rather as a set of combat and scenario building rules which are intended for use in either a wargame or an RPG.]
Strife core
The core design concepts used in Strife are…interesting. Aquero is certainly ambitious trying to create a set of scalable combat rules for either a wargame or an RPG. Ultimately, however, the rules fail from what I see as a superficial understanding of the principles and laws of warfare that are difficult to understand due to convoluted scaling mechanisms.
The first Core Concept presented in Strife is that of Offense and Defense which Aquero states, “is the baseline for this game” (p. 5). This core concept anchors first with a strictly deterministic offense versus defense mechanism where, “If the Offense is higher than the Defense, then the Defender is destroyed” (p. 5). While Aguero labels this mechanism “Proportional” it is anything but—[5] beats [4] to the same degree [9] beats [1]. To mitigate the strict deterministic nature of the “Proportional” rule, Aguero layers on a stochastic component called “Dice Randomization.” Using a linearly-progressing Combat Results Table (CRT) rolling a d100, that [5] against [4] now has a 60% chance of success versus [9] against [1] with a 99% chance of success. Finally, the use of Modifiers is introduced where various modifiers serve as row or column shifts on the CRT for Offense or Defense, respectively. Further, if a hit is achieved, a Combat Effects rule then calls for a d10 die roll to determine the actual damage, ranging from “1: All skills reduced by 1/2” to “10+: Unit destroyed” (p. 6). [nvb. The “skills” formulation only makes sense if one understands that Offense and Defense are a “Skill” with each measured on a scale of 0 to 20.]
The second Core Concept presented is scale though it is not signposted as such in the rulebook. Both an Offense and Defense scales are presented ranging from 0 to 20. For a game that has no “technology levels” the scale used for Offense and Defense looks very much like a Tech Tree. For example, Offense 8 is “Autocannons” whereas Defense 8 is “Armored Personnel Carrier, Chinese Hvy Cyborg” (pp. 7-8).
[Of note, the closest Strife comes to Tech Levels is in “Another Designer’s Note” found on page 14 that wounded my Traveller RPG heart: “There is not a rating for technology level. This is deliberate because the range, speed, Off [Offense] and Def [Defense] sufficiently show the disparity between units of different technology levels with[out?] add on mechanics”(p. 14).]
For a game with “scalable” in the title the scale of Strife is…confusing? After Offense and Defense, the next characteristic of a unit that matters is size. The simple definition of “Size” is, “the number of personnel of the unit” (p.8). Reading deeper into the rulebook, however, Size refers not only to the number of people in a unit but also the length of a game turn and a map distance used for play. Size uses a 15-rung ladder ranging from:
- “Size 1 = Team or a Crew for a system or vehicle…A turn is 6 seconds long…occupies roughly a small room or 10’ by 10”
- “Size 15 = Theater and can be millions of people…a turn is 1 day…theater is continental size” (pp. 8-9).”
The second attribute of size—map distance—is very confusing, especially when juxtaposed against the “Size Chart to Map Scale” table that appears well later in the “Scenarios” section of the rules. That table presents, “the sizes of a 1” square (or hex) on the map board” (p. 39). On this table, Scale 0 = “5’ x 5’” and Scale 15 = “Continental (5000 km 5000 km)” (p.39). Interestingly, whereas Unit Scale tops out at 15, the Map Scale goes as high as 20 (“Solar System”) (see p. 39).
Going back to the Core Concepts, Size also drives several other game elements:
- “The largest Size characteristic in the map determines the time each turn takes and the scale of the combat” (p. 8)
- “The Size characteristic…is the maximum number of times the unit can be damaged” (p. 8).
The use of Size as a measure of time and distance scale is problematic. Frankly, the time and distance scales might work for RPG play but for wargames it is quite restrictive. If you want to use Strife for a wargame understand the in no game—even those with Theater-sized units of millions of people and movement at continental distances (however you measure that) distances—can a turn be longer than one (1) day. If you were looking to use Strife for a strategic-level treatise of a conflict it is going to be in one-day increments. I know of no strategic scale wargame that uses that scale…for many good reasons.
The discussion of Size in the Core Concepts of Strife also injects a Designer’s Note that gives me considerable pause:
While it might appear that having a number of small units attack a larger unit would be numerically advantageous, it is not. Each combat is considered to be a separate engagement, and not simultaneous. A good example would be five squads [Size 3] attacking a single platoon [Size 5]. If each squad engaged that platoon in sequence, it would be five squads attacking that platoon in five separate engagements. If the five squads coordinated their actions and participated in a single action, then it would be five squads acting as a reinforced platoon [Size 6?] engaging a single normal strength platoon once. That would be far more advantageous then five small attacks. This is representative of four principles of war, specifically Mass, Maneuver, Unity of Command and Simplicity. (pp. 9-10)
[Reading the most basic of definitions for the Principles of War named by Aquero makes me suspect that the author may not fully grasp their meaning. For example, “Unity of Command” is usually viewed as a single commander, not simply all units work together. I will admit, however, that Strife certainly strives for simplicity, though not in the manner the Principles of War define.]
I do not know how much Aguero studies wargame design, but it appears that the combat model in Strife drives one to a single tactic of Massed Attack and discourages Sequential Attacks or even Dispersed Attacks. In doing so, Aguero misses what Captain Wayne P. Hughes calls a fundamental point of warfare in that modern weapons with range, “have brought into question and sometimes overturned the principle of massing forces” (Hughes, p. 272). That point is one of many Hughes uses to illustrate his Salvo Equations which directly takes on the very maxim Aguero is basing Strife on; “the one that calls on tacticians ‘always’ to use superior force to attack a part of the enemy, while forestalling him from doing the same” (Hughes, p. 263). Hughes writes, “As far as the equations are concerned, a numerical advantage in ships is always the most valuable attribute a fleet can have” (Hughes, p. 274). Substitute “units” for “ships” and we see how Aquero focuses Strife strictly on a massed vice dispersed model of combat.
From this point on I can only describe the other core concepts used in Strife as…questionable. For example: “Range is multiplied by size to determine the unit’s range..” (p. 10). To understand that statement one must look at the “Range/Depth Chart” on page 40. Using both Unit Size and Range, a Regiment [Size 8] of British Redcoats armed with muskets [Range 4 = 250’ Medium] has a “Range” of 32 [8×4] whereas a Squad [Size 3] of modern soldiers armed with Assault Rifles [Range 6 = 900’ Long] has only a “Range” of 18 [3×6]? If one follows the rules-as-written, that Regiment of Redcoats (6-10 companies or ~2,000 troops) plays on a board with squares/hexes that are the size of a “small town”—each 20 km x 20 km according to the Size Cart to Map Scale table. So how does one square the circle on that “Range = 32” which measures out to 8,000 feet of “reach” with units armed with muskets that only project out 250 feet in a square/hex that is 20 kilometers across? More confusing, what about that modern Squad of soldiers with Assault Rifles that reach 900 feet (but really 2,700’ because Size 3?) arrayed against that Regiment that has double the range (32 versus 18) again on a map board with 20 km squares/hexes.
How does that make sense?
Aguero makes several other claims in the Core Concepts section of the Strife rules that, frankly, appear naive or otherwise unexplainable. Most of these are found in a rules section where Aguero explains Skills and how they are used by Units. For example:
- “Resilience” is defined as, “Equal to the Current Def x Current Size of the unit.” The example line that follows reads, “A unit with a Defense of 4, a minimum size of 3, and a die at 5 has the following…” (p. 11). Where that die comes from or why is never explained.
- In “Experience and Leadership,” Aguero rules that, “Experience transitions to Leadership at squad level (Size 3+). Prior to that you can just show people what to do and how to do it” (p. 12). Just ask any Drill Sergeant if it really works that way…
- In “Teamwork & Communications,” Aguero writes, “Teamwork transitions to Communications at Company level, because at lower levels you can know exactly how your teammates will react to something due to the amount of time you have spent with them” (p. 13). Tell me you ain’t married without telling me you ain’t married…
- In “Morale & Training,” Aguero explains, “Morale transitions to Training at Company level (Size 6+). Morale for a platoon or smaller units can be extremely high and allow for people to pick up the slack of others. At company level, however, there are too many specialized skills that can’t be learned without training” (p. 13). The linkage between morale and training is tenuous, at best…
Combatting Strife
The combat model in Strife reveals unsettled schizophrenic rules split between wargame and RPG as well as internal inconsistencies in rules. Whereas the earlier example of Massed Attack postulated a simple addition of unit sizes to form a single Attacking Unit, the Combat section has rules for both Dispersed Attacks (separate units attacking) and Massed Attacks. In Massed Attacks, however, the rule-as-written does not define massed units using a linear addition of units (unlike the example in Core Concepts) but instead specifies that, “If two units have the same offense, they combine to give a +1 [Die Roll Modifier?] to that attack. If the units have different offensive values, then each additional unit [of Offense?] gives a + [Die Roll Modifier?] to that attack” (p. 14). If the “Core Concepts” are different from the “Combat” rules just what is Strife presenting?
In Strife, units can also attack Skills. Skill levels are rated in increments of 5% so a unit with a Skill Level of 7 is considered to have a basic 35% chance of skill success. Using the sample units above, that Roman Regiment could attack the Tactics Skill of the Fireteam. Assuming a Tactics Skill of 8 for both combatants (40%, a bit below average according to Strife) that is a straight Off 8 vs. Skill 8 attack with a 50% chance of a hit using the Combat Results Table and no modifiers. Mechanically that rule works, but what does it represent?
Chrome or confusion?
The “Optional Mechanics” rules for Strife offer up more confusion than answers. No better example of that confusion exists that that found the rule for Attrition. This rule introduces an alternative to the Size = number of times a unit can be damaged mechanism from page 8. Using Attrition, Off x Size = Damage and Def x Size = Resilience. Going back to my Redcoat Regiment versus Modern Squad examples that means:
- Redcoat Regiment 5/3/8: Off 5 (“Shotguns, Rifles”), Def 3 (“Adult Human”), Size 8 (Regiment) has 40 Damage and 24 Resilience
- Modern Squad 6/3/3: Off 6 (“Heavy Rifles”), Def 3 (“Adult Human”), Size 3 (Squad) has 18 Damage and 9 Resilience.
In Round 1 of Combat, the Squad attacks first (per the “Initiative” rule on page 10 a unit’s base initiative is its Size and units with lower Initiative move first and resolve damage first). The Squad attack (Off 6 vs. Def 3) is 80% (no DRM since smaller Size) and, if hit, scores 18 Damage against 24 Resilience = +6. Note that, “The Resilience…remains what it previously was, it does NOT reset each round” (p. 16). The Regiment then attacks (Off 5 versus Def 3) = 70% with +2 DRM (+20 on d100); Hit means 40 Damage applied against Squad 9 Resilience = -31. Squad is “hit” and reduced to 5/2/2 for next round.
In Round 2 of Combat, the Squad attack (Off 5 vs. Def 3) has a baseline 70% chance of hit; if hit is achieved it is 15 Damage versus 6 Resilience (carried over from Round 1) which will reduce the Regiment to 4/2/7. The Regiment can now attack (Off 4 vs. Def 3), and so on.
[Oh, wait a minute. Now I get it! When Aquero said in the Core Concepts that Offense and Defense were “Proportional” he was referring to Lanchester’s Law. Alas, it appears Strife only embraces the Linear version of the law where:
- Each combatant engages one opposing combatant
- Numerical superiority provides a relatively direct advantage.
What Strife appears to not use is Lanchester’s Square Law where combat power is proportional to the square of the force size. If that were the case, the Attrition rules could (spitballin’ here, because heck, these are PLAYTEST rules) define Damage as Off² and Resilience as Def² and leave Size as a measure of the number of hits the unit can take.]
The Attrition rules also brings up the question of, “What is a Round of Combat?” The term is used but not defined in the game. Perhaps it should be the time scale for the smallest unit on the map? In the Regiment versus Squad example where every Turn is 15 minutes a Round would be 30 seconds, or up to 30 rounds in a turn. A bit clunky…but scalable?
The Attrition rule also introduce tech levels in a game that declares not to use tech levels. The example used in Strife reads:
Since some weapons are designed to be used against larger targets such as anti-armor weapons used by infantry, those weapons may be designated by a Size number and a number in parentheses. The Size number is used for Resilience, while the number in parentheses is used for the Damage. As an example, a unit with Offense 8, Defense 8, and Size 2(5) does 8×5 = 40 Damage, has a Resilience of 6×2 = 12 and can be reduced in size twice (from 2 to 1 from 1 to 0). (p. 16)
Scaling back on Strife
My intent with this post was not to playtest Strife but to review it. My rules exploration revealed many inconsistencies or “huh?“ design decisions that, frankly, I have already spent too much time studying. So this is where I am going to leave this discussion of Strife. Before I sign off, I must tip my hat to Shane Aquero for writing Strife; the rules certainly are an interesting experiment in game design. Their usefulness, however, is questionable. I strongly believe the designer needs to go back to the core concepts of the design and evaluate how they scale; in particular how “proportional” is used and scaled across the many game mechanisms.
You can chat about this game in the Modern World section of our discussion forums
Thank you for visiting the Regiment of Strategy Gaming and riding with The Armchair Dragoons.
Rather than list a bunch of social media links, the easiest thing to do is to check out our LinkTree, which connects you to all of our various locales around the web.
You can also support The Armchair Dragoons through our Patreon, and find us at a variety of conventions and other events.
Feel free to talk back to us either in our discussion forum, or in the comments below.
