"understanding solo wargaming" Topic

I am a publisher of war games rules in the modern period. I often see requests as to whether a war game is suitable for Solo gaming. However I am not really familiar with what is wanted. I have bought some of the typical works like programmed war games scenarios but found them lacking.
Now, my opinion of my rules is that they would be good for solo gaming. I have run lots of test cases solo when doing developments.

I would suggest my rules are very usable for the following reasons.

The defense and attck even when player vs player needs to be set up before the game starts. The nature of the rules is that if a side is well organized then it can move at a speed that prevents it being a game of move/counter move on a bound by bound basis. Thus even for two players there is a need to "sit back" and carry out the plan for a while. As/when it starts to go wrong the actions to attempt retrieve the situation need to be planned a few bounds in advance. One initiated, too much tinkering is order,counter order which creates disorder, this coupled with some inherent fog of war in the system looks to be ideal.
It would definitely work better on longer games probably 20 to 30 bound games which would represent say 3 evening games for the two player equivalent.

Obviously there is more "work" to do. As a solo player you have two artillery plans to write and there relative phase lines for change of priority etc. Again two engineering plans would be required one for each side. But I guess that is part of the attraction.

You will note I have made no mention of random events. When looking at the published data the random events in my opinion did not add to the game.

Writing a basic philosophy may be relevant. e.g soviets tend to always attack buttoned up. The NATO allies are less hidebound. You could change those and look at the impact of the changes on a battle.

I would appreciate you comments on my postulations. Positive or negative provided they are constructive.

I have never found a set of rules that I could not play solo.

Hmm. Always had trouble with solo myself, and certainly some people can solo game anything, but I tend to see it as a matter of doctrine. An army with a limited tactical repertoire is a good solo enemy--Spartans, Swiss, SYW Prussians, perhaps WWII Soviets, and most tribal forces. Roll a die for point of attack, and the rest of the plan pretty well writes itself. But I regard any game with written orders as problematic. If I have to make a plan for both sides keeping in mind what the other side might do, but not knowing what I already know, my head hurts.

As for assessing your own rules, this is generally a mistake. Hand them to three friends, ask them each to try a solo game, and accept their verdict.

robert piepenbrink, I have friends but none play solo.
In the real world certainly since Napoleon you had written orders. In a two player game I can struggle to keep on top of the plan. With two sides I would have to write myself notes.

Even in a 2 player game you have to have an Artillery plan. You cannot fire quickly at anything you fancy even today. Read any US manual to work out what the real world requires. War games require much less but nothing is an implausible solution. Random requests as a replacement also leads to implausible results. You get pre-programming for nothing.

I believe its the player not the rules. Unless your game has some specific reason it won't work, they all do.

Very few games cannot be played solo. I have a particular advantage in solo gaming, in that by the time I gwt to the other side of the table to play team B, I have already forgotten what the plan was for team A. When I get back to team A, I look at the minis and it call comes back to me.

I find one of the hardest aspects of solo gaming is to not play a favorite side in a battle,

The more "hidden information" a player has, the harder it is to play solo while fulfilling the game designer philosophy intended by the game designer. Bidding/auction systems, for example, are pretty hard to pull off well solo. Same with hidden, mapped movement, etc.

UshCha2, I've read a regrettable number of manuals--and for my sins done field time in both brigade and division TOCs. Give me a little time, and I might still crank out a respectable five paragraph operations order. The real world requires a great many things which a wargame can deal with in some other manner, and artillery support can be a good deal more responsive than you think.

Obviously, the closer you get to a low-level, real time game, the more likely it is that you'll be stuck with written orders. But I did not say they were unrealistic on necessarily bad game design. I said they were problematic for me, especially in a solo game contest. Dale did a good job of explaining why.

But as for your own assessment of a game you've written and I've never seen, You don't want to convince other people who have also never seen your rules that they're good for solo play. You need to find guinea pigs and let them tell you how well they work in a solo game. Every rulesmith since H.G. Wells has told me how great his game was, and they weren't all of them right by quite a margin.

I agree with Dale. We both started with the same club that played simultaneous, map marked movement (CLS). It is hard to see how to do that solo.

Rick

+1 what Dale Hurtt said.

I would also add that rules that have highly interactive turn sequences sometimes makes it harder for the player not to favor one side over the other (which we all have a tendency to do). A good example is using cards to determine activation order in The Sword and the Flame. When activation order becomes critical it is amazing the number of times that you catch yourself not selecting the right unit to take the activation.

Same with the Warmaster[\i]-style command activations. (Once one fails, the rest of the command cannot attempt to activate.) The more that sequencing is critical, the more likely bias will creep in.

At least for me, and I game solo a fair bit.

I've played many games solo and have found that as long as they don't have a strong limited intel aspect, most will work. I do my best to just play both sides as fairly as I can.

Cards for your "opponent" can be used for moves by the enemy, in order to keep the fog of war for yourself, the solo player.

I think anything can be played solo. On the other hand, not every player will enjoy solo play.

My best solo experience was with GDW's Fifth Frontier War.
Many years ago, I used to come home from work and play a turn or so. I just left it set up for weeks. It was a nice way to unwind after work.

Must admit what you are describing are the reasons I probably to date have done little solo gaming. When/if I get in that situation I must admit my sort of gaming would be what I have done so far which is to test the quality of a plan or an approach/philosophy to be applied to a particular situation. Clearly my understanding of what is required in a solo war game is not in line with the folks requirements here. Thank you for your time and effort.

I agree with Glenn, i'ts nice to have a game set up and play it in a leisurely way, say after work. You can spend the day thinking what will I do?

I found for skirmish that getting away from IGOUGO and using card activation works well, but I do my Hyborian big battle stuff straight using HOTT/DBA style. I root for one side, but the other side takes the story in unexpected ways usually. Emotions lead to bad decisions sometimes and you react to take advantage. Human nature after all.

On thin king about this process for some time I have begun to realise that an interesting element is reconnaissance and randomising the information and it's accuracy for the opposition having already organised the line of march and my army composition this also allows for the possible clash of opposing scouting parties which can be fought as a skirmish or a small battle itself with the objective of information gaining or avoiding prolonged contact or the taking of prisoners. All of this adds to the fog ofcombat.Following the information received there is the issue of their own deployment which again realistic variables can be introduced including the level of ability to arrive on time and follow orders of deployment to start with.
A lot of the ideas come from having taken part briefly in an ACW reenactment training weekend where apart from the skill at arms training there were lengthy sessions on reconnaissance and derployment drill

Plotted fire arriving in future turns is a real problem. The rules I play now (stand=platoon/30min turns) just use a call rating. Either at barrage arrives first, so you can take advantage of the results, or its the last thing resolved during your phase. I remember reading that the German were use to a 15 minute window between beginning an action till the gun fire started landing. They were often caught in the open when the US fire arrived in 5 minutes or less.

Even when younger, time and again as others have said, I would catch myself 'favoring the 'Good guys'. i.e., the Allies over the Axis, and so on.

IMHO, that is 'one' of the big challenges to keep a game to having as true of a random outcome as possible.

In my own ST TOS rules, plotting movement was a 'must'. I saw it as "programing your nav. computer". So once ploted the movement had to be carried out as written.
This also 'allowed' players to make those mistakes that could change the course of a battle.

When I over hauldc the sys. for a solo play, I used d6 charts to 'decide', to change or not to chnage course, speed etc.
The exception being; "If the die rolls would cause a ship to move off board, any part of the 'plot' could be rerolled."

Granted at times this resulted in very unfavorable maneuvers, but the objective was to take favoritisim and pre-knowledge of what the 'other side' is doing, out of the game as much as possible.

Since i only solo game now due to working shifts , i thought i would chime in. When i look at a set of rules there are a few things that will make life difficult

1. does the game rely on player to player interaction think command and colours variants , the game relies on cards for activation of units

2. Having to preplan anything

3. hidden units

Essentially i try to create a "story" for the game and then just act it out . i am not one side or the other but a director of the story , if you want to have a look at all the games i have played have a look at

robssolowargames.blogspot.co.uk

all the games were played solo

Rob