Solo Games and Game Mechanics in General

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

I think a solo game isn't going to avoid a lot dice rolling/card drawing.  Some sort of AI will need a degree of randomness, otherwise responses could be anticipated.
I haven't played Rally Round the King but similar mechanics could be used on a large skirmish game to control the "enemy" side. 

Could a system as below be made to work?  I suspect it could just get all too complicated, but there may be ways to make it work.
Different types of troops will have a certain set of priorities which can be adjusted by circumstances, dice roll and tactical goals.  There would be cards with prioritised actions for, example, melee troops on defence, melee troops on attack etc.

An example may be a group of light infantry with bow and short sword.  The may have a combat role to harass the enemy.  Their priority will be to move to range and shoot.  This will be influenced by the terrain they are in and proximity of the enemy.  The dice roll may mean that they panic and fall back; perform their proper role; decide to try to make a flanking move; get over bold and decide to abandon their shooting and decide to charge in with short swords.  This latter event may be influenced by enemy retreating before them or only being faced by other light troops.

Heavy infantry might have orders to hold a piece of terrain or attack.  Each order type would have a list of priorities which, again, may be altered by a dice roll.

I wish I could find a good AI system as most of my gaming for the foreseeable future will be solo.  Simple activation/ failed action isn't enough to feel engaged for long.

[andyskinner]

I don't mind some die rolling.  I like the unexpected, and I consider adding random movement to games that don't have it.  It isn't the amount, but what it means.

The THW games, which I have tried multiple times, just feel like we go back and forth rolling dice, and they always feel pointless to me.  I understand that the rules are loved by many, but I always feel I've missed something.

I am interested in co-op, and not solo, but I don't know if they are actually different.  I think that some of the things I really love in games with opponents are some of the things that could make solo/co-op more interesting.  (The various mechanisms for friction in Chain of Command, for example.)

The ultimate would be to allow surprise.  Either to be surprised by the enemy, or to "surprise" the other side.  If you are controlling them, just pretending they don't see the flanking move isn't very satisfying.

andy

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

How about adapting the cards for Sellswords and Spellslingers.  This allows for ambushes and reinforcements of the enemy.
The Maurice rules had a card "That's not on the map", or something similar.  This allowed for an unexpected terrain piece to be popped on the map.

How about every time a new part of the board becomes visible (cresting a hill) you reveal the terrain and possible enemies that lie behind it?

Use blinds for enemies - you know roughly where the enemy are, but not what they are until you are within range.

[petercooman123]

The ultimate would be to allow surprise.  Either to be surprised by the enemy, or to "surprise" the other side.  If you are controlling them, just pretending they don't see the flanking move isn't very satisfying.

I have used a roll in the past for flanking moves. Just a roll off to see what happens. Something like a test to see if the unit being attacked is fast enough to react to the flanking maneouver.