Solo-wargaming the Enemy

[Moriarty]

Don Featherstone’s ‘Solo Wargaming’ is in re-print, and you can still get hold of the ‘Military Modelling Guide to Solo Wargaming’ by Stuart Askwith.

Facebook has a Solo Wargaming with Miniatures page?

[Easy E]

@Dentatus - Good luck with the stone.  I had one myself in the not-too-distant past and I do not recommend it!   

[levied troop]

Describing one side of a solo game as ‘the enemy’ possibly makes it harder?  I try to look at both sides as ‘mine’ and approach each turn from the aspect of the side I’m playing. Writing down a broad tactical approach for each side before you start helps.
But then I rarely play a wargame for the ‘win’, more for the story - as anyone who’s seen me play knows

[Elbows]

I think that's pretty common if you're playing a normal game with no "solo" rules involved.  If I play a solo game which isn't written for solo play, I simply play each turn to the best of my ability for that turn/situation.  It helps if you play a game with randomized activations for this purpose though --- as you're less likely to subconsciously cheat yourself.

[Kikuchiyo]

I don't play solo games, but I've played a few cooperative games against 'AI', which are essentially the same thing. I was very impressed by Ganesha's Sellswords and Spellslingers, which avoids enemy movements being predictable by having lots of 'spawn points' on the table - essentially, any piece of terrain, if I remember correctly. The card-based system also threatens the appearance of enemies from the table edge behind the player characters. So there's constant uncertainty and threat - and that in itself creates an exciting game.

Obviously, that works better in fantasy games than in other genres. It's one thing to have goblins crawling out of holes or the undead rising from the earth; it's quite another having armoured cavalry ride out from behind a tree!

Could work for moder conflicts quite well though

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Just some of my thoughts about solo gaming:

I frequently solo wargame with one side being “Me” and the other is the “Enemy”.
Some rules do this better than others.  At a skirmish level this works well with Sellswords and Spellslingers and I find Lion Rampant/Dragon Rampant work well for warbands (and with a few tweaks works well for large battles).  The cards for Sellswords and activation system of both sets of rules goes some way to giving a sense of uncertainty/fog of war and keep the game exciting.
It is hard to create a coherent strategy for the “Enemy” without us knowing what that is.
Adjutant Introuvable goes some way towards this, but I don’t think it suits ancient or medieval games.  I am sure this could be modified.

Hobgoblin states (perhaps slightly tongue in cheek) : "Obviously, that works better in fantasy games than in other genres. It's one thing to have goblins crawling out of holes or the undead rising from the earth; it's quite another having armoured cavalry ride out from behind a tree!"

But I think there are many examples of battles where a force is surprised by an enemy unit in dead ground.  Cavalry might not be hiding behind a tree, but the undulations of terrain might mean infantry in line advance only to suddenly find a couple of squadrons of cavalry hidden by a gentle rise.
Sam Mustafa’s Maurice rules has the interesting card of “That’s not on the map”.  This nicely simulates units getting in trouble through poor scouting and coming upon terrain that hampers them.

The way I often play is to have some uncertainty regarding the size of the enemy force.  This may give the enemy the same number of points or more points than “Me” (due to playing bias the enemy needs more points, so I never play with them randomly having fewer).  I don’t know what this will be until I have deployed my own force.  Terrain is randomly generated, I deploy, then the enemy has a semi-random deployment.    Using games that have potential failed activation means I can give the Enemy a battle objective – the success or failure of activations giving the uncertainty rather than “what is the enemy’s plan” being the unknown.

Even with Dragon Rampant I have the potential for random events if playing it as a big battle game.
I read somewhere about terrain having a somewhat random effect.  The river you want to cross may be deeper than thought.  I order one wing to attack the enemy on the hill, only to find it is steeper than I thought etc (this type of thing can also be used for P vs P but is especially useful for solo gaming).  Too much of this could make a game too random, but a scattering of problems creates new decision nodes for the player.

The problem with random force size, random events that may include an ambush or flank march is you need a lot of surplus units.

Denatus:
"1. that a solo/co-operative game is an inherently different animal than a traditional, competitive PvP contest with human players. That means it's structurally different, so the game objectives and experience will also be different.

2. where the rule set falls on the complexity scale, which for me translates to how quickly in-game actions are determined and resolved. My offerings tend toward the beer-n-pretzel side, so I default to Time Limits, Set Objectives, Escalating Threats, and Random Spawning/Entry Points for enemy forces". 

I agree, these are very different games.   Some things just don’t work for solo games.  Complexity of mechanics is important.  In a solo game, if there are too many things to keep track of it becomes very slow and stodgy.  Some game mechanics are not practical – hand building games – such as Dux Britanniarum – do not work.

[Redmao]

To play solo, I really enjoy rolling to activate each member of my team/warband. Upon success, the character performs normally, upon failure, something happens which can be an enemy activation, reinforcements arriving, etc.
That way, I don't know exactly when the enemy will activate. I also use hidden tokens until I gain line of sight on the enemy. Surprise plays a big part in solo play.

I use AI tables for the enemy's action/reaction. The more trained/higher level the enemy is, the more tactical their actions/reactions will be. Ex.: local thugs could rush to attack, but trained mercenaries might instead try to setup an ambush or gain higher ground.

Zombies are perfect for solo play as they don't have any sense of self preservation. They just go on the offensive as soon as they have line of sight.

[Joelegan]

Just found this post as I am relatively new to the forum.  Agree with the 2 assertions by the original post about what makes a good solo game; surprise and needing to make decisions that count for something.  I was glad to read that for some folks it is all about the story because for me that is what it is about.  I would rather play solo because an opponent usually isn't as immersed in the story as I am.  Campaigns and set up are a separate topic but for in game play I think you can use tables, dice or cards.  My latest is cards.  I posted on it on my blog last January found here: http://platoonforward.blogspot.com/2023/01/revisiting-piquet-with-lt-laroche-1950.html
Thanks for the topic and discussion.  Great to know I am not the only one.
Cheers

Joe

[tikitang]

I would rather play solo because an opponent usually isn't as immersed in the story as I am.

I find this comment really interesting as I very much feel the same way. At least, I thought I did, but it occurred to me: how does one know this, for certain?

[frd]

First of all - great topic and replies, glad I stumbled upon it. There's already a great amount of advice on here! We should be compiling all this advice for future solo-wargamers!

I mainly play solo (with most of my games playing as me vs enemy, but some are where I don't champion either side and want to see what happens), and sadly find most of the solo systems out there sub-par. They are either too simple which leads to them being predictable, or too complex leading to them taking a lot of time to use (and I'd rather be making decisions than going down flow-charts or crunching numbers). Saying that, I will take a too simple system over an overly complicated one any day.

This is because, like many others here, I'm happy to add my own procedures as I play. There's a lot of little procedures that I have, but honestly, I mainly end up using blinds/enemy spawners and random tables that I prepare ahead of time (although, I'm tempted to start making myself cards as Ethelred mentions, but I feel I might lack the discipline to keep up with sorting it all before each game.) and letting the "enemy" make random decisions during play.

Whenever I feel like the enemy unit has more than one clear option on how to proceed, I assign some odds and roll on it. The simplest example of this is choosing who to shoot at, but it goes way beyond that. Let's say the enemy model got suppressed with heavy fire last turn, they hiding behind some flimsy barrier when its their turn and need to decide what to do. They might simply return fire, maybe dive for better cover or hell, maybe they snapped and will just charge, guns blazing? Then I assign some odds (let's say 1-3 return fire, 2-5 dive for better cover, 6 go all guns blazing) and roll for it. Sure, my surprise is not total, but it does mimic my experience when playing against an live opponent, as I usually try to figure out how my opponent will respond in a similar way - coming up with the actions they might take.

I get the most of my surprise from those ad-hoc rolls to see how the enemy will react. I tried writing some reaction/response tables in the past, but none would come close to variety I would come up during the game itself. So I stick with that.

Now, I'll admit - this approach does take some practice. I came to this hobby from RPGs, and especially from the FKR movement (FKR is a niche within a niche, but boils down to "play the world, not the rules" - meaning that the narrative logic takes precedence over any written rules and during play you should immerse yourself in the world and instead of trying to "game" whatever system you're using) and it can take a while before it "clicks" with you, but once you're there, it's plain sailing.

As far as I know, there are next to no wargame rulesets that focus on this kind of approach. Partially because it is much more tricky to turn something like that into a product (I basically told you what you need to know to run it already), partially because the wargaming hobby flourished around the popularization of tournament games (which, by design require rigid rules). I say next to none, because Nordic Weasel's "War Story" does attempt something like that, John Bobek's "The Games of War" strongly hints at it and of course there are bespoke games that build upon the ideas from Engle Matrix Games. However, none of those focus on a solo experience.

But in the end, you don't need specific rules. To go against one of the big credos of RPG world - system doesn't matter. You can use any game and add this on top, just as most of the other advice already in this topic and have great time.

I was going to write more about the procedure differences between "simulation" and "game" type wargames and how that limits our idea of what wargame rules should look like, but I fear it might veer into off-topic territory and this post is already long enough, but I at least hope some of you will find it interesting.

[frd]

I find this comment really interesting as I very much feel the same way. At least, I thought I did, but it occurred to me: how does one know this, for certain?

I guess we can't know for certain, but if I'm the one providing the both armies, terrain and explaining the rules I do have feeling I might be the one who's invested a bit more. Not to mention if I also explain the setting and the story

Outside of that (and I even experienced it with thematic boardgames) sometimes you can just feel that the other person is not as invested in the story as you are. There isn't really a single thing that you can point to and say "this is why!" It's more a combination of body language, responses and general atmosphere around the table.

At least with solo gaming I know that everyone is on the same page

[Lost Egg]

Plus if your opponent's late, you've only got yourself to blame 

[Joelegan]

Tik,  you ask how do I know that my opponent isn't as invested?  I wrote an article for wargames illustrated years ago describing the 5 types of gamers.  I am a "dreamer" who plays for the story and being there.  I was playing a non dreamer and he took a desperate bazooka shot at my German tank and blew it up.  He couldn't understand why I thought that was cool because now I was probably going g to "lose" the game.  That is how I know.
Frd,   agree.  Right now I usually know the action for the opfor to take but I have to have the right card and then they need the correct maneuver roll to pull it off.  Makes for suspense!

Joe

[tikitang]

  I am a "dreamer" who plays for the story and being there.  I was playing a non dreamer and he took a desperate bazooka shot at my German tank and blew it up.  He couldn't understand why I thought that was cool because now I was probably going g to "lose" the game.  That is how I know.

I totally understand. I am a "dreamer" too, I think; I would be very interested to read that article if you can point me to it!

[Andy_cole]

Joe legan, thanks for that link, I have tried Piquet too, and with a few tweaks can really suit solo play. I saw on your blog you were playing Saga,was this solo and how did it work out? Did the dice rolling add in the required fog of war and unpredictability er are after?