"Bias In Solo Gaming" Topic

Some observations on (my own) unconscious bias in solo wargaming: link

Actually think I do same, only play Napoleonic but since no French it's allies VS allies.

Excellent food for thought. Thanks. Maybe a small model guillotine will encourage the French forces to go that extra mile?

I win against my own solo rules more often than chance, mainly because humans are always going to be able to predict the likely actions of the AI. I have found so long as you get a good fight out of it, and you lose occasionally its quite satisfying.

One suggestion is a sort of handicap, give the solo forces an (x) percent greater force, and see how it plays?

I'm running at around 50% in my solo games. That's pretty good considering the other guy cheats!

The great thing about solo games is you always win.

If you're like me, when the underdog is successful it's more of a delight.

During early covid, I ran dozens of Fireforce games using Skirmish Wargames rules. In most cases it was a walk over for the RLI against overwhelming odds in figure count (but not quality). One of the most memorable games was one where Zanla took out an entire stick.

Excellent food for thought. Thanks. Maybe a small model guillotine will encourage the French forces to go that extra mile?

:-)

I win against my own solo rules more often than chance, mainly because humans are always going to be able to predict the likely actions of the AI. I have found so long as you get a good fight out of it, and you lose occasionally its quite satisfying.

One suggestion is a sort of handicap, give the solo forces an (x) percent greater force, and see how it plays?

Lots of my WW2 solo games are like this and I usually get the same sorts of results as you. But the WW2 French got stomped, more-or-less…

I'm not convinced you've got enough data points [20 <for the same game> is usually considered the minimum] to draw a conclusion.

If you think you are winning too easily then just keep giving the enemy more troops, at some point you will crack, then apply the same 'skew' to all future games.

I'm not convinced you've got enough data points [20 <for the same game> is usually considered the minimum] to draw a conclusion.

Well I am at 19 for the One Hour Wargame scenarios and the split is like 14-5 against the Franco-Jacobites (although admittedly that was with two different rulesets, Neil Thomas 'Simplicity in Practice' and Polemos: Ruse de Guerre.

In the 'Gembloux Gap' campaign, the Germans won 6-2 against the French, all with the same rules, although the scenarios are not intended to be as balanced as those in OHW.

We don't have to count the naval wargame, since the British have specific advantages in that, but that was another 1-0 against the French.

If you think you are winning too easily then just keep giving the enemy more troops, at some point you will crack, then apply the same 'skew' to all future games.

In the OHW games I am most worried about, then it isn't about 'me', I am playing both sides equally, or supposed to be. I am no happier in any given battle whether one side wins or the other.

But then do we win or lose vs ourselves?

"Well I am at 19 for the One Hour Wargame scenarios and the split is like 14-5 against the Franco-Jacobites (although admittedly that was with two different rulesets, Neil Thomas 'Simplicity in Practice' and Polemos: Ruse de Guerre".

You can't just combine; if for example one rule set is 5:5 and the other 9:0 it shows you have different rules, if they're both roughly 3:1 then yes you are heading towards a biased scenario or biased application of the scenario. 'Crack on' as the military say, you're heading in the right direction.