Question for the Solo gamers

[Dean]

I’m picking up on the comments elsewhere about other people playing solo and also people saying that it’s hard to play both sides of a tabletop encounter.  I’m not talking about a game designed to be played that way like Five Leagues, but about standard tabletop wargames. 

I added an element to my latest Saga game where one side was receiving reinforcements each turn and made that random using the unit cards I use anyway (see below but I am sure many of you do this already).

So this all got me wondering, anyone out there have other tips and tricks they use?

[Inkpaduta]

I play a lot solo and have never seen it as a problem. When I play one side I make the moves I feel are
the best moves to make for that side. Then I do the other side the same way.

[vtsaogames]

When playing solo, I usually am testing new rules.
I find moving to the other side of the table helps. Sometimes after switching I have spotted errors made on the other side.

[Moriarty]

Asymmetric armies might help. If you have two different sets of playing challenges, it will be easier to play to each side’s strengths.

You could try adding characters to the opposing generals. Red general is cautious, blue general is bold.

Introduce weather. Cold:heat, rain/sun, wind/calm affects different troop types different ways.
good luck!

[Harry Faversham]

Last couple of years I've been solo gaming. Leaves a lot to be desired, pretty dire, but better than nowt. The one big plus is, you've more time to really enjoy looking at your toys, in their miniature world.
Then the Eureka moment came!!!   

I tried straight forward Fistful of Lead, solo. It gave all the classic unpredictable lunacy, only it can! I had an engrossing afternoon's fun, totally forgetting it was only me. Try it, you'll not be disappointed.
 

[vtsaogames]

Two Hour Wargame rules are also pretty solo-friendly, since one side doesn't have a fixed order of battle. Roll the dice: that possible enemy force might be just shadows, or 4 enemy units.

Years ago, two of us played British and Provincials vs. French and Indians run by the system. First time we waltzed across the table, clearing them out. With plenty of time left, we played it again on unfriendly turf. The place erupted. We were chased away and they looted our baggage.

[gweirda]

You could try adding characters to the opposing generals. Red general is cautious, blue general is bold.

This and then some.  Rating troops is not a novel concept, but leaning in on the role-playing that it generates can go a long way towards making solo play a challenge.  A bit of work before the game is required to decide which characteristics are needed and then generate stats for each unit (or figure, depending on the scale of the game), but then those can be utilized during play (via dice rolls) to guide the action.  This is not meant to create a "Chutes and Ladders" machine that is simply wound up and allowed to play out on the table, but to provide a framework within which the 'characters' act out to the best (or sometimes worst) of their abilities.

Example: I rate each pilot in an aircombat game by their flying and shooting skills along with their experience and 'pluck' on a simple 1-5 scale, then roll against it (either as a single d6 <> or as a pool of dice seeking, say, a number of 6s) when a situation arises that sees them faced with a task and/or choice of action (eg: Do they succeed in the maneuver? or Are they keen to get into the fight?).

As a player I still participate in deciding what I think they should (try to) do -and have only myself to blame for the many blunders!- but how the battle evolves on the tabletop is not so predicable (ie: boring) that enjoyment cannot be had.  And as Harry said: Getting the toys on the table is a pleasure in itself!

[Kikuchiyo]

I'm a big fan of playing one side and npc'ing the other

Sellswords and spellslingers have a neat approach as a starting point

[Kourtchatovium104]

For solo gaming, I'm using a mix between Chain Reaction and Zona Alfa rules.

I'm adapting the encouters table to the setting played to give a more specific atmosphere in each game.

The combat rules can also be adapted to fit the atmosphere. 

[Norm]

I game both figure games and boardgames and for solo play, I just play both sides as best and possible and just do what seems to be right. I never really feel any favouritism to one side or the other.

Some systems help solo play like random unit / formation activation and systems have barriers, such as those with hidden positions or using two hands of cards, which are meant to be kept secret from the other side. For the most part, i find that solo gamers finds ways to get around many perceived obstacles.

I do have a gaming buddy for face-to-face, but have never had a problem with slipping between the two gaming styles - at the moment, I am into day 3 of a big boardgame (Austerlitz), it has fog of war rules, which i dropped and the play has been hugely enjoyable.

[Easy E]

Worst part about solo play is that your opponent is always an idiot! 

[Dean]

Really?  I find the worst bit is when my opponent proves that I’m an idiot 

[ced1106]

He even won't paint the miniatures! I have to do all the work!

Anyway, what solo system is OP asking about? "Rank and file" wargames?

The generic fantasy skirmish game, Sellswords and Spellslingers does a creative job of both randomly dropping enemies into the field, and ambushing from terrain only a few inches nearby. While this obviously keeps the human on their toes, it won't work for "rank and file" historical games, or enemies that have an equal point value.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Oops!  A little long.

Playing both sides as well as I can seems stale and I don’t feel so invested in the game. I like to be able to identify with one side or character or commander (perhaps a hangover from when I used to play RPGs).  I find solo games can be engaging and exciting, they just need a bit more work. Playing both sides dispassionately makes it hard to use any real stratagems.  You can’t make a move without the other side fully anticipating this.  I unashamedly play one side as the PLAYER (me) and the other as the ENEMY.  In other words, I am “backing” one side and this Is mostly under my own control; the other side is partially under my control, but also has more random elements or subject to some degree of AI. 

While you can never truly be surprised or be completely free of anticipating the other side’s moves, I feel there are some things that help. 
Below are some of the methods I use when solo gaming.  Some of these have already been mentioned by others.  I don’t use all of these at the same time.  Some mechanics are better for small games, others for larger games; some work best for horse and musket, some for Medieval/Dark Ages.

A good scenario helps.  Possibly with different objective s for both sides.  The ENEMY objective might be random and might only be revealed after the PLAYER has completed one or two moves.
Random force composition of the enemy.  You might have most of the ENEMY core force already decided but then have some random additional units that may change the balance of the ENEMY – possibly more artillery or cavalry than you expect.   
Semi-random ENEMY deployment.  Deploy a proportion of the ENEMY as you think is sensible and then deploy the remainder randomly.  Possibly some deployment is hidden – move blinds and reveal these on contact.  Adjutant Introuvable is good for horse and musket era, not so good for Medieval.  Possibly deployment cards such as those for Soldiers of God could be useful. 

Deployment issues may just be, where the units are in the battle line or what brigade is on what flank.  But random deployment may include where the ENEMY appears on the table.  How far in from the base edge are the enemy?  How close are units deployed with respect to an objective?

To overcome some of the problems relating to PLAYER bias, random force composition, deployment and objectives, the ENEMY force may have to be bigger (but with a small chance of being smaller).  Randomly roll for size of enemy (points or number of units).  Results may be: 10% smaller, same size, 10% bigger, 15 or even 20% bigger.
Sometimes I will also randomise terrain and on what table edge the armies enter.

Event cards – this may allow for a hidden or flanking ENEMY force.  Not all events need to be bad and may aid the PLAYER.  But the overall balance should be for events to slightly favour the ENEMY.  One card I liked in Maurice (Sam Mustafa rules) was “That’s not on the map”; a previously unseen piece of terrain such as a bog or an area of rough ground.  Event cards need to fit the type of game – small skirmish games might be expected to have more random event, large battles might have only one or two.  In a Wars of the Roses game both sides might risk treachery and part of their force either slinks off or joins the enemy.

I find some degree of random activation helps.  Lion/Dragon Rampant, Hail Caesar and Midgard (awaiting publication) are good examples.
I have never really found a good way of translating card-driven hand-building games into a solo game (thinking of Dux Britanniarum).   
AI of the sort Kikuchio has shown (Sellswords and Spellslingers) can be useful.

Moriarty’s suggestion of different army styles is helpful – one may have good command/control (probably better for the PLAYER) and the other has a weak command structure.  In one set of rules I use for First Age Middle Earth (Midgard – still to be released) I have Elves with normal unit status, Dwarves and House of Hador with “Drilled” status.  Orcs are both “Impetuous” making them head off on wild charges and also “Reluctant” making them harder to manoeuvre.  This gives two very different playing styles and sees a small elite army face off against a larger rabble. 

I hope some of this helps.

[Dean]

It does indeed help, thank you sir!  Indeed I appreciate all the comments so far, thank you for your thoughts and please feel free to keep them coming.  Yes I am particularly talking about making general games of two sided warfare more interesting to the solo gamer i.e. make it feel different and challenging playing each side 'independently'.