""All Rules Can Be Played Solo" " Topic

Of course they can, even checkers or chess. But can it really be any good and if so, how do YOU do it?

Usually, there needs to be some sort of die rolling chart, or cards to draw, in order to represent your opponent(s).

Some systems are more "intelligent" than others, the latter of which may just be random events/actions.

Intelligent "systems" are the best.

The last time I played a wargame solo was when I played Avalon Hill boardgames by mail. I would play a few moves in advance to see if I was making a ….. wise move.
Not that it helped. Darn stock market!

Other than testing rules I don't do solo.

A way to go might be to post a pic / map of the battlefield here and an orbat or scenario summary – ask the membership to suggest how they'd deploy as your opponent and pick the majority answer.

Post another pic and ask for orders and instruction for the first few moves, and then post another pic and summary of any action so far.

Then post a new pic, and request instructions for the next few moves and so on.

So it sorta works like a play-by mail but you can post updates as often as you need and hopefully get feedback quickly enough to keep it interesting for you.

David F Brown

Live in the boonies – if it weren't for solo I would never play. It is a challenge. And my solo opponent is a big cheater

Role- Playing I want both sides to win and I use history as my guide…

If players have hidden information (hidden units, hands of cards, hidden information), then no, the game can't be played solo.

I play mostly solo. I find that it helps to have more randomness, and not just in combat results. I use the One Hour Wargame army list charts, random deployment of the "opposing" army, and activation rolls or random movement allowances.

If you play solo, don't focus on "winning", but focus on the developing story of the battle.

I have a plan for both sides, then follow that plan and see what happens.
When the plan obviously doe not make sense anymore for an individual unit, or when something else could be done (use your own judgement), I simply roll a die to see what happens and go with it. Not all options should be given an equal chance. The Mythic roleplaying ( link ) game is also a good source inspiration.

I have used pre-programmed scenarios as well.

Yea, I love Mythic!

In my solo games, each army has a doctrine, varies in discipline and morale, has personal profiles for each or many commanders that dictate or promote tendencies, and if odd situations develop, I will create randomizing tables on the spot to deal with the situations.

The big thing is that the personal profile and doctrine create a set of light role-playing guidelines which direct the decision making. Like Phil says, it is about developing the story of the battle, about enjoying the adventure, not arriving at the destination.

I still find myself going back and playing "Ambush!" I've put together some great squads over the years. Not entirely sure how that game system would be adapted to scale up to larger formations in other eras

When I write games that can be played solo, I provide a set of automata rules. Usually they have a random or pseudo-random element. Generally, I limit solo play to a side in the conflict that has a single, simple strategic objective (take the hill, capture the aliens, ransack the village, etc.).

While we are talking about this, how many people would be up for a page-sized Markov map as an automata for playing solo? Something like 15-20 nodes with 1 to 4 different conditions for changing state. I set up stuff like this all the time as OPFOR doctrine in training scenarios, but try to compress tabletop hobby game automata down to a couple of tables and one (pseudo-)random tool.

I just use the 2 hour Wargames rules. They are great for solo games.

Matthew

I just play each side as best as I can. Solitaire play only becomes harder if there are specific sub systems that are essential and none solitaire friendly,

I think this is a better way to go than using a weak AI.

Etotheipi -- yes, yes, yes! A page-sized Markov map sounds awesome.
Now what's a Markov map again? (Seriously, I don't know what it is)

Systems that give low levels of control once the fur starts flying are a good start. It's one reason I like the THW games; the reaction tests ensure that you do not have total control of all your troops. A programmed opponent is always good too. I really like C. S. Grant's 'Programmed Wargames Scenarios' for this. The enemy has a range of probable reactions to your manoeuvres and you dice to see which one it implements. I like this approach. I hate trying to play each side fairly. It's too sterile an approach, and lacks drama. A combination of lack of total control and a programmed enemy is my preferred solo set-up. That said, I find it very hard to be bothered setting up solo games.

Decidedly not a fan of just playing each side, nor of using random elements to overly affect both sides.

I like to play as one side and let the game system handle the other, and try to write that into my designs.

Bob

Yes,just wondering how other folks do it.

Strategically, you randomize what the other side does, according to the probability of this or that choice, based on the situation. Then each subsequent test is based on the changing situation.

Once you get to the battlefield, you randomize the tactical OB for the other side in a similar fashion: the main factors being army size comparison, troop type, general's capabilities or "level" of competency, terrain, and possibly even the over all strategic situation thus far (this could affect aggression or the tendency to go defensive, etc.). Then lay out the armies. Then switch from one side to the other side and play that side that turn as if they are YOUR side. You do your very best with what you have, with the side that you have, this turn, every turn….

I am with Norm, For all games I play each side the best I can. I don't change the rules or use any other aides (other than what is supplied by the rules) to help play solo. I may change the rules because I cannot help tweaking, but it is not to help solo play.

I don't play solo much. When I do and am not playing 2HW, I find getting up and walking to the other side of the table makes a big difference. I sometimes spot mistakes made.

So, I'm a PC gamer (ww2 mainly) and I'm getting tired of gaming on the PC, however, there are not any gaming groups near me and I find myself stuck playing WW2 game by myself (at least I have the computer opponent).

I'm finding myself wanting to table top game, but it will be strictly solo.

I own a few ww2 aerial mini's, but I've never played a miniatures game and I'm a little reluctant to plunk down hundreds of dollars on mini's and paints only to find out solo gaming using mini rules is….boring.

Any solo ww2 gamers care to chime in? How do you like it?

I'm thinking, to keep my overall costs down, only to buy mini's of the theater era's I like (mainly western front 43-45 and some eastern front)

Like others, I'll play solo games using my 'regular' rules to learn mechanics or test a scenario I've developed. Again, like others, each turn I try to make the best choices for each side, sometimes having a tea break in between to better distance myself from my previous set of plans and decisions. However, for 'pure' solo games, THW's rules are my go-to rules system due to the programmed enemy and randomness created by the Reaction system.

"I'm thinking, to keep my overall costs down, only to buy mini's of the theater era's I like (mainly western front 43-45 and some eastern front)"

A box of each side of 1/72 figures is a cheap enough starter force. (Go to Plastic Soldier Review to see pics of all the sets.) Vehicles in the same scale are also plentiful…

I think this is a better way to go than using a weak AI.

Your AI can arbitrarily be as sophisticated as you want. The concern is the same with any other part of a wargame – the more you want to represent, the greater the complexity of the mechanism. There are ways to streamline and optimize algorithms, but they will only buy you so much. Ultimately, how much you want to get out of it drives how much you have to put into it.

This is why I try to limit automata to simple, single strategy forces. Bugs in a bug hunt swarm or surround when they can see targets. They run when scared (too many casualties). With only a couple of simple behaviours, you can throw a couple random elements in and have a mechanism that requires you nothing more complex than to count a couple of things on the board, roll a die, and look up a result.

Now what's a Markov map again?

This would be something more complex where you had opfor "states" like Lurking, Circling, Probing, Feinting, Charging, Surrounding, Targeting the Strongest, Targeting the Weakest, Targeting the Closest, Concentrating Attacks, Taking Cover, etc.

Each of these behaviours would have conditions (state of the battle and possibly some random element) to transition to another behavioural state.

"While we are talking about this, how many people would be up for a page-sized Markov map as an automata for playing solo? "

I am!

I solo when I have time. I have not had time lately. I gravitate toward games with random activation and simpler games for solo since I have to do all the heavy lifting.

Any game CAN be played solo, but I find that decision heavy games with a lot of cards or dice to allocate will tend to be less satisfying for me.

I like using TFL's rules for soloing. The card systems outside of CoC and SP2 are quite the thing for it, and I add a little humor by shuffling the blinds out of my sight. It's fun when all the tanks show up farthest away from the point of attack or none of the arty is any where close to deployed usefully. :-)

I play solo the majority of the time and I use the same approach as as normsmith and just play each side as objectively as I can. I agree with JohnThomas8, that the card activation in TFL rules can spice up a solo game a bit.

I agree with vtsaogames: Walking to the other side of the table can make all the difference.

At least in IGOUGO games with "move then shoot", often the dice/cards result in actions that simply fail on the one sides turn, so when you walk to the other side of the table the forces arrayed against that side will not be 100% the way that was planned. As long as your brain can "switch sides" and try to win with the side you're playing, usually the rules (and luck) will do the rest.

I don't have to work too hard to find a solitaire system, because I'm amazed at how often I will miss something (sometimes for several turns), or how often I wonder if something really seemed like a good idea at the time. Nice thing about it, my opponent isn't any smarter than me, so it usually makes for a good game.

I generally stick to small unit formations when I play solo, especially when doing spaceship combat. I have played rpg games solo. Solo AD&D with a full party is easier than MERP solo games.

I use cards or dice for initiative and for obeying commands.