"about solo wargaming" Topic

A long time ago I wrote an article about solo miniature wargames; back then the list of games barely reached five different titles.

Fortunately things have changed over the years, and many miniature wargames designed specifically for solo play have been published.

That post seemed very useful both for those just starting out in solo gaming and for those who had been playing for a while and discovered a new title.

That post deserved an update, and here it is, hoping it helps you or at least entertains you.

Of course, add in the comments section any solo miniature wargame I might have missed, whether through oversight or simply because I didn't know about it.

link

A long time ago I wrote an article about solo miniature wargames; back then the list of games barely reached five different titles.

Fortunately things have changed over the years, and many miniature wargames designed specifically for solo play have been published.

That post seemed very useful both for those just starting out in solo gaming and for those who had been playing for a while and discovered a new title.

That post deserved an update, and here it is, hoping it helps you or at least entertains you.

Of course, add in the comments section any solo miniature wargame I might have missed, whether through oversight or simply because I didn't know about it.

link

Tereydavi,
You certainly explained why I play solo; forthe story. Well stated. Thank you for the kind words about Platoon Forward. I have also written a supplement for asymmetrical warfare called Grunts Forward.
You didn't mention air or sea but I also have squadron forward for WW II air combat and Flotilla Forward for WW II small boat action.
Great list!

Thanks
Joe

The last thing I could have expected when writing this post was for the very author of Platoon Forward to comment on it!!

Thank you so much for taking the time to comment!

Platoon Forward deserved a special mention because honestly I think it's an exceptional book. I remember devouring it, looking at every mission and the possible variants, trying to figure out how the parameters were established for the possible changes.

A great book that deserves an exclusive comment just for itself.

I don't play air or naval theaters of operations, so I wasn't aware of the books you've written since then, but Grunts Forward interests me a lot, since I'm now very into asymmetric missions (mainly modern warfare).

Many thanks for your work, without a doubt a rule set of great quality!!!

Thank you for posting such a detailed amount of information in one spot. While I love Two Hour Wargames, alternative rule sets are always desirable.

Tereydavi,
Grunts Forward was designed for modern conflicts such as Vietnam. I have used it for Afghanistan as well as partisan operations in WW II.
I have now morphed into company level actions. Platoon Forward works surprisingly well still for these. If interested you can follow along at my blog here:
platoonforward.blogspot.com

Cheers

Joe

PS Your explanation of why to solo really hits the mark! I didn't write any of these rules as a commercial product. I wrote what I wanted to play. My brother talked me into trying to publish them. I am glad people find them useful. Even now all proceeds go to charity.

Your blog is outstanding!

Since 2009!

A huge amount of inteeresting posts to check, thanks a lot for such a great work, mate!

Glad you enjoy it. Not all the posts are about land combat but the majority are. I will be posting a French foreign legion account with Capt LaDuc in Africa 1997 next.

Cheers

Joe

Joe Legan I have a (dumb) question about Squadron Forward. I'd like use it with Bag the Hun and just getting started reading the rules and your publication. I have a group I play with. Is Squadron forward meant to be for just one side of a two sided game? Is it just for solitaire? I'm doing Battle of Britain and anticipate 3-6 players. Normally people are split into one side or the other, but Squadron Forward seems to be all about working up a team for only 1 side of the battle. Just wondering who plays the other side?

Not a dumb question at all. It is "designed" as a "one side" playing against an opponent. That way you follow your characters and their stories. IF you played that way you make the decisions for your squadron and your opponent(s) then play the opfor that you rolled up for the scenario. BUT…
If you have a group that plays together often what I have done is the following:
Have each team roll up a squadron of fighters. Each player taking 2 pilots as their own and the others can be NPCs ( which make great wingmen).

Teams alternate by day getting to roll up the mission. ( Day 1 brits. Day 2 germans)

Both teams see what the mission is but instead of rolling for number of enemy fighters the "enemy" team decides how many fighters to send based on how many pilots and planes they have.
Example: day 1 the brits roll intercept mission. The brits decide how many fighters to send and who. Roll for target and number of bombers. Don't roll for the number and type of enemy fighter. Let the German players decide how many escorts and which pilots fly. Then set up the battle as per the scenario card and play it out.

After the battle BOTH sides roll check for crash landings ( or ditching for the germans!), events, promotions ect. This way everyone gets to be part of the story.

I did this with spitfires and zeros over Darwin and it was a blast!

Make sense? Keep the questions coming.

Joe

If you have a team against an opponent. So the folks on one side are the ones that roll up characters and follow them from battle to battle. Does the opponent also have to have characters in order to keep the move opportunities equal? Would I as game hose play the opponent?

You can play it either way. If you want to play more co-op style it actually works a little more smoothly. Have the "players" roll up their pilots and add some NPCs if you need to.
2. Roll up the mission which will contain the enemy aircraft types and number. For the skill level of the enemy fighters just use the correct county table and year in the book. Then you or whoever is going to run the enemy force ( often referred to as OpFor for "opposing force" ) helps set up the game.
3. Play the game using bag the hun.
4. Post game have the players roll up post game events as per squadron Forward. Don't worry about the enemy. They will just be generated a new with the next mission. The enemy doesn't have to have characters. Their skill levels are taken care of by the skill table every mission. Their numbers are generated by the scenario.

5. Have the players roll up a new mission!

Make sense? What didn't I explain well?

Joe

A few of us still probably research an historical action, make the terrain up as close to the actual battle space as our kit allows, paint up any additional minis needed for the scenario, and prepare maps and sit.-cards to present to players – this is a lot of solo activity already, just from a preparation point of view.

Conversely, unboxing a board game, or rolling up an encounter is near instant gratification in comparison.

After the 'traditional' old school expenditure in hobby time (the historical research is always my joy), I want to get some return for the investment – which does involve non-solo activity.

(don't think I would need to go much past the research point in this hobby process, if the effort didn't involve some social reinforcement)

In regards to quick-play gaming, or solo gaming, there arises the question of why do it with miniatures after all – board gamers especially wonder why miniatures gamers go through all the trouble just to play.

The short answer I guess – it's the degree of involvement that can sustain the motivation.

Believe me Gents, I'd love to do solo, but it's not happened yet……still, after this old school time spent with the hobby, solo gaming does sound liberating!

Fly,
Your post reminded me of an article I wrote for WI way back in 2012 on why people game. It was entitled "walk a mile in their moccasins". It postulated there are five types of gamers.
I suggest you game for history, modeling and social interaction.
Your post suggests that solo gaming takes less preparation and could be liberating. It can be for those that chose to play that way. Depends on the gamer. People who meet and roll up a two player game of FOW have little preparation and enjoy the game immensely.
I play for history, the story and modeling.
I want to be in the shoes of Capt Bryant or Sgt Stiles. To make the decisions they were faced with. To do that I need accurate TO&Es, opfors and situations. I love that part of the research. The battle is semi randomly generated because it has to be. Sgt Stiles didn't know the situation he was going into. O/w he knows too much. I play solo because I care about the story and my opponent never has. It is easier and yes liberating.
Sorry for the rant. People game for various reasons. For the vast majority, socialization is so important they don't get solo gaming. Thought I would try to explain. : )

Cheers
Joe

A good rant Joe!

I play solo because I care about the story and my opponent never has. It is easier and yes liberating.

Just this weekend, I'm back to kicking around the idea of trying some co-op style gaming, instead of my endless hosting of games for others to enjoy. Why? Well, let's consult your list above and I'll add my slant to it also (first and best – keying off that quoted comment above) -

#1 – YOU GET TO PLAY!
#2 – You understand "why we fight" – because you understand and care about the historical layer unfolding (having already explored the background or having done the research).
#3 – Perhaps it's hard to be disappointed with our own gaming commitment……but then others might just be looking to roll some bones, and score some kills with any game scenario based on dadada (aka that background history which lots of guys don't much care about – instead "let's game!").
#4 – Tactics? Aren't our games almost/often tactical tests? However, what if players don't use them. :(

Back to that co-op thing I mentioned – that is, having the player side team up, and I DM – ooops, I mean, I manage/generate the opposition (and it could still be a historical scenario, but instead, I GET TO PLAY!).

Btw, I think Tereydavi's thread here, and the comments you guys have made, must have been wearing on me at this weekend's game – 'cause I'm thinking a lot about making some changes.

Fly,
Be careful, you are starting to sound like a story teller!
Co op games are fun for all the reasons you mentioned. When my son and nephews come round I usually run a Co op game and it is fun. I try to throw a wrinkle in there somewhere. Once it was the wild west and they had to rob a bank AND kidnap the Mayor. I was the sheriff. Only the mayor wasn't home! He was at a late "meeting" elsewhere. They all wanted apple phones to communicate. : )
It is important to take a step back and think about what we actually enjoy about our gaming. It is a hobby after all!