Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Ethelred the Almost Ready on August 28, 2018, 10:14:18 PM
-
How many of you do solo play?
How do you manage solo games and maintain a sense of suspense and uncertainty?
Things I have tried or considered have been:
Random event cards/tables.
Random scenery and random deployment. The latter is used for the side that is "the other player". Often the side that isn't "me" also gets a random number of units - usually weighted in favour of "the other player" to offset any bias.
Variable movement rates.
Variable activation (such as Dragon Rampant).
In Napoleonic wargames I used Le Feu Sacre with it's variable order of activation of generals. This helps to some degree, but I found it required quite a lot of concentration and management when done solo. Possibly because Napoleonic games are quite large with many commanders.
I don't think command chits work as I know where each side is putting them and tend to just cancel eachother out.
Building a hand of cards, as in Dux Britanniarum, also doesn't seem to work for me as knowledge of both sides hands removes any surprise. Likewise using differing game objectives/boasts etc just don't seem to work and only add another layer without increasing uncertainty.
How do you make use of heroes in fantasy games?
Are you a bucket of dice player or one who prefers tables and modifiers?
For ease of play would a grid system work?
I am really struggling to find something that works for me. I want something that allows some uncertainty, but also some planning. I don't want a game that is merely ancients with fantasy figures. I don't want to feel that the game is hard work and concentration, but does have plausible and interesting command decisions to make.
Some rules I have looked at are true fantasy rules, others are for historical games but could be a basis for fantasy games.
To date I have looked at:
Rally Round the King
Warmaster
Warband
Hail Caesar
Dux Brit
Lord of the Rings SBG.
Commitatus
Dragon Rampant
Kings of War
To the Strongest
For small skirmishes:
Sellswords and Spellslingers
Various Ganesha Games and THW products
Age of Blood
Blood Eagle
Do I just mash together ideas from several rules systems?
Is there something else out there?
Am I just a difficult person to please :D
-
I wish I had the answer, trying some rpg fantasy stuff myself. What about Pulp Alley?
-
Mash ideas. Somehow this is what I wind up doing in the end, that and randomly mixing rules inadvertently.
-
Crowdsource the decision making for your ‘opponent’s’ side?
Post a picture to a Forum, use a poll options for different tactical options...?
-
You might find Charles Grants "Programmed Wargames Scenarios" helpful. It provides a system of programmed enemy deployment, orders, and responses. To be honest, though there is no really good method of AI that I know of other than simply trying to play both sides as honestly as possible. You would attempt to inflict the most damage as possible or take the most strategic position. It helps to have multiple personalities ;D lol
I also recommend you check out Pulp Alleys solo rules in their Vice Alley rule set and adapt it to your games. Dave has a very useful and flexible system that could be made to fit any era I think. See how to video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-yljZnda9w
-
There was a solo mechanic for The Man Who Would Be King, if my memory is correct when a unit gets within a certain distance of terrain they roll on a table and then place the relevant unit which then carries out the most suitable action.
5Core games has their version where chits are put on the table and any unit with line of sight then rolls on a table as to what it is from a pre generated force list which is larger than your own force. The advantage of this system is you could end up playing against a small inexperienced force, or a veteran force which out numbers you with armoured support.
These are two systems I like both could easily be adjusted to fantasy forces. But as mentioned there is no perfect system.
-
:D mash em fo sho….FROSTGRAVE is awesome.
-
Sounds like "mash-'em-up" is the preferred method.
Of possible interest to some, I came across this blog:
http://wargaming-mechanics.blogspot.com/2017/02/buckets-of-dice.html
Some of it is rather technical for a leisurely read, but there are lots of good ideas and interesting insights into game mechanics.
-
That website is pretty interesting, thanks for the link.
-
I like this sounds of this:
Crowdsource the decision making for your ‘opponent’s’ side?
Post a picture to a Forum, use a poll options for different tactical options...?
With a system like To The Strongestthe grid keeps tactical decisions straight forward which would make it easier for your online "opponents" to agree on the options.
-
I like this sounds of this:With a system like To The Strongestthe grid keeps tactical decisions straight forward which would make it easier for your online "opponents" to agree on the options.
The only problem with online opponents is, if things don't go my way, I can't throw my dice at them. lol
-
I seem to recall reading in a book (the Stuart Asquith solo one?) many moons ago that static scenarios work well for solo games. It severely limits the options for one side and you can play the other side more fully. So stuff where you have one side defending some sort of strongpoint, or ones where one side is surrounded and must hold out for as long as possible, that sort of thing.
Somebody mentioned Frostgrave, the Dark Alchemy supplement does contain some scenarios specifically designed to be playable solo. That might be a good place to start, then you could look into converting other scenarios into solo play. I'm sure other people have tried this if you look on the Frostgrave sub-forum, I wonder if some kind of monster hunt type scenario could be made to work well?
Finally, there are books on Solo Wargaming which might give you some ideas. If you haven't already tried to find them you should be able to pick some up fairly cheaply (I suspect the days when you could find them at your local library are long gone).
https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=&title=solo+wargaming&lang=en&isbn=&submitBtn=Search&new=1&used=1&ebooks=1&destination=gb¤cy=GBP&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr (https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=&title=solo+wargaming&lang=en&isbn=&submitBtn=Search&new=1&used=1&ebooks=1&destination=gb¤cy=GBP&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr)
-
The only problem with online opponents is, if things don't go my way, I can't throw my dice at them. lol
If that is an important part of Your Game, then yes, you will be disappointed with online opponents. :D
-
You might find Charles Grants "Programmed Wargames Scenarios" helpful. It provides a system of programmed enemy deployment, orders, and responses. To be honest, though there is no really good method of AI that I know of other than simply trying to play both sides as honestly as possible. You would attempt to inflict the most damage as possible or take the most strategic position. It helps to have multiple personalities ;D lol
I also recommend you check out Pulp Alleys solo rules in their Vice Alley rule set and adapt it to your games. Dave has a very useful and flexible system that could be made to fit any era I think. See how to video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-yljZnda9w
THANKS for the kind comments! I appreciate your support. :D
-
I solo; I like card-driven mechanics for this (SS&SS, Pulp Alley, Strange Aeons), but I am probably also going to use THW systems for this, and I don't mind playing both (or more) sides in a 'normal' game (although some randomness, like in FfoL is nice when doing so).
-
Arkeo Obskura (Gothic Horror/Pulp) and Dungeon Saga "Adventurer's Companion" (Fantasy dungeoncrawl) both have solo/solitaire gaming options designed into them which you may be able to adapt to your specific needs.
Arkeo Obskura works by random selection on predetermined 'reaction tables'
Dungeon Saga has a clever card based system (one of Gav Thorpes best designs).
-
Great thread with some useful information. I've added a Solo Campaign to my list of product offerings for our fantasy game The Sword Marches: Metal Sword & Sorcery Skirmish Wargames. We've published a free Ashcan version of the rules for playtest that can be found here http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=111976.0
Over the next year's worth of public play testing we'll be open to all input on how to do a Solo Campaign play book. My Brink of Battle core system and its sister games (Epic Heroes, Scrappers, & TSM) are very easily adapted to solo play already, but I want to come up with an AI system that will complement the Encounter system I'll have in the core rulebook. I'm sure I'll be picking your brains in the coming year to get advice and feedback. :)
Thanks,
Bob
-
I find Sword and Spear (and Sword and Spear Fantasy) to be pretty satisfying to play solo. The way the activation rolls are made, the first player lays out his activations before seeing the second player's roll, and the second player always gets to see the first player's roll, means you have pretty much exactly the same decisions to make over what to do with your activation dice playing solo as you would playing an opponent.
As with most solo games you don't get the 'here's my brilliant tactical plan my opponent would never have thought of,' spoiled. But that's not really what you usually get in S&S in any case. You usually get the 'there's 6 things I really need to do right now, but there's only 3 activations I can make' problem.
-
I find Sword and Spear (and Sword and Spear Fantasy) to be pretty satisfying to play solo. The way the activation rolls are made, the first player lays out his activations before seeing the second player's roll, and the second player always gets to see the first player's roll, means you have pretty much exactly the same decisions to make over what to do with your activation dice playing solo as you would playing an opponent.
As with most solo games you don't get the 'here's my brilliant tactical plan my opponent would never have thought of,' spoiled. But that's not really what you usually get in S&S in any case. You usually get the 'there's 6 things I really need to do right now, but there's only 3 activations I can make' problem.
Sounds pretty good to me, I may have to check our S&S! :)
-
Sounds pretty good to me, I may have to check our S&S! :)
I did a kind of run through of it here:
https://tewblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/sword-and-spear-fantasy-test-1.html
https://tewblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/sword-and-spear-fantasy-test-2.html
https://tewblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/spear-and-sword-fantasy-test-3.html
-
I did a kind of run through of it here:
https://tewblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/sword-and-spear-fantasy-test-1.html
https://tewblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/sword-and-spear-fantasy-test-2.html
https://tewblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/spear-and-sword-fantasy-test-3.html
Fantastic, thanks for sharing! I shall be popping by later today. ;D
-
I am interested in co-op play. Most of the games I have seen intended for that are pretty small skirmishes. I think I'd like something a bit bigger than those. Generally we play large skirmishes (40 to 60 figures a side, organized in groups but not formations). I'd be happy to cut that down for co-op, but not to the handful that some of these games seem to aimed at. If each of us had a leader and 16-20 figures organized in small groups, and we had "enough" bad guys (whatever that means), it might be something I'd aim at. (Though if we could have a fun game in the same size we've been playing, I'd love it.)
Do you need different mechanics for medium or large skirmishes than you do for the 6 vs 6 kinds of games?
Some of my favorite mechanics are the things that add uncertainty and keep the game from being only about lining up on each side and moving forward until you roll dice. Chain of Command has lots of mechanisms like this, though I don't know whether they could apply to fantasy. I think the activations in the Song of games are fun, though I've often wanted the games to go a bit bigger, without having to use bases of multiple figures. I'd like something to add to the very simple rules we usually play (Age of Fantasy from One Page Rules). Let the very simple rules handle the moving and fighting, but something with a bit more flair to add excitement.
andy
-
I'm about to start work in a couple of minutes, so a short reply for now.
Andy, I would also like to play a larger game solo. Have you looked at Rally Round the King?
-
I think the activations in the Song of games are fun, though I've often wanted the games to go a bit bigger, without having to use bases of multiple figures.
I use 4 warbands, two on either side. doubles the size of games.
turn sequence starts with side 1, warband 1. If they fail two rolls on an activation, play passes to side 2 warband 1. IF they fail it passes back to side 1 with warband 2 and then to side 2 with warband 2.
Works pretty well, you just have to write down the warband compositions, so you know wich models can act on a warbands activation.
Something else i have tried is doubling the points of a warband, and letting them ignore the first 'turnover', but this tends to make it a bit unbalanced, as there can be more 'ganging up' on specific characters.
I still have to try doubling the points and keeping any activation markers after a turnover. when the opponent gets a turnover you can then activate any models without a marker. With a second turnover, remove all markers. Dont know if that will work though!
-
What about some kind of algorithmic flowchart for each personality and unit hat could randomly determine their behavior ?
-
I'm about to start work in a couple of minutes, so a short reply for now.
Andy, I would also like to play a larger game solo. Have you looked at Rally Round the King?
I have not. I think it is a multi-figure stand game, but am not sure. I really want medium to large skirmish. Really large units with formations aren't what I'm after.
And I have tried hard to like THW games, multiple times, but they just don't click for me. Too much rolling.
andy
-
I use 4 warbands, two on either side. doubles the size of games.
Thanks. Those ideas address turns ending by activation failures. But I still think it needs something to let groups act together. Doing combats one at a time can be slower, too.
But they really are terrific rules.
andy
-
Thanks. Those ideas address turns ending by activation failures. But I still think it needs something to let groups act together. Doing combats one at a time can be slower, too.
But they really are terrific rules.
andy
Yes they can be slow at times, especially if you have a horde-type warband.
-
I solo a lot.
I suggest you to check Two Hour Wargames specifically designed for solo and co-op, for skirmish as well as for massed battles.
-
I solo a lot.
I suggest you to check Two Hour Wargames specifically designed for solo and co-op, for skirmish as well as for massed battles.
He just wrote that he doesn't like the THW system, though. ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.