Solo Miniatures Rules - Recommendations?
MickHartPa
another location for a game. I'm curious as to what you folks out there use
for solo miniatures rules for the following eras (I game 15mm, 6mm and (WWII
only) 20 mm:)
Napoleonic
SYW
ACW
WWII
Ancients
Thanks in advance for your recommendations/ input.
Mike
Tim Donovan
>for the following eras
Big gaming group here in Columbus so i solo very little but from past
experience and what i know ofr some rules.
>Ancients
DBA would work very well for solo. The variable "pip die" command and
control in which you roll one D6 and that specifies how many element or
groups can move would work very well. One could try different deploymentsm
bold manuvers or play a conservative defense and hone your tactics for when
you do play another opponenet.
An issue of WI had a great system for quick and dirty ancients play in which
troops are divided into skirmishers and melee troops, and trhen one rolls a
D6. Typically ona roll of 1 they remain flat footed with a 6 sending them
charging into melee. the ranges in between may include moving half, or
shooting OR moving. I modified this to D10 and grafted on a simple combat
system and this works very well both solo or muilti-player.
>SYW or AWI
Age of Reason may do alright, both side A and side B mix in a card for each
brigade and then draw randomly "activating" this brigade. This may casue
enough friction for interesting solo play.
Piquet,
As a multi-player game (we typically have 3 on 3) Piquet was too slow,
sometimes we had up to 45 minutes of "down" time for a player. As a solo
game the variable turn sequence card deck would flourish with each side
typically having a "run" on the initiative allowing them to attempt to
implement their strategic plan without the defender being able to react
immidiately. Follwoing this the opposing side could then attempt to either
counter the opponenets mopves or still try to carry on with their initial
strategy.
WW2
I have layed mush crosfire. This may be difficult solo as findfing "holes"
in the opponents defense is the key. If you gave yourself a strict time
limit to scan the "opponenets deployment" and thne made all of your moves
quickly you would eventually "screw" up and get caught moving in the open or
such. their is no turn sequence with initiatve shifting when one fails on n
action so this would help crate enough "random" friction to make the game
interesting if played at a quick pace.
Just some thoughts.
Tim
Chris Abbey
Piquet.
I would reccomend that when playing Solo you play blind, i.e. you do
not roll for unit quality until the unit first fires, melees or checks
morale. I'd also prepare some cards with up1 / down 1 / No adjustment
and put them face down under terrain items such as villages, woods,
hills etc. The card would not be turned until troops first entered that
terrain, therfore a piece of terrain could be easier or harder going
than initially anticipated.
My rules reccomendations would be:
Ancients - Archon
SYW - Cartouche
Napoleonic - Les Grognards
ACW - Hallowed Ground
WW2 - Point of Attack : The Blitzkrieg
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
keith
Chris Abbey <chris.abb...@yeg.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:13b2087d...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com...
> In my opinion their is no better gaming system for Solo Play than
> Piquet.
>
my initial reaction is that it's the system I've been waiting for all these
years. The variable turn structure and the tendency for each side to get the
bulk of the initiative for several goes makes it much less predictable. A
lot of systems when played solo tend to lead to thoughts on the lines of
"Side A will do this, so side B will that, and therefore side A will respond
with..." and you can virtually play the game in your head. Piquet is much
less easy to foresee, but feels right as the battle develops and seems to
give reasonable results.
As I say, based on limited experience, and I know a lot of people don't like
the concepts behind it, but I'd strongly recommend it to any solo gamer.
I'd also recommend C S Grant's book "Programmed Wargames Scenarios" to any
solo gamer, whatever system or period you use. It effectively gives you an
opponent, with at least some artificial intelligence. The system he uses is
fairly easily adaptable to your own scenarios, or to historical battles.
Keith
Scott L. Karakas
I currently game solo exclusively, and my hands down choice for ancients is
Archon, the period module for Piquet. Having the turn order broken up into
individual Sequence Decks mean that, while one side may indeed know what the
"other's" plans are, there is no guarantee that their troops will be able to do
anything about it! And since each unit's missile, melee, and morale values are
rolled for individually, an added element of "fog" can be added by simply not
rolling a unit's pertinent value until it is called for in the game. All in all,
IMHO Piquet ideally suited to solitaire play.
Since ancients is the only period I game, I cannot help you with the other
periods, beyond pointing out that there are appropriate Piquet modules for each of
them.
Good luck in your search!
Scott K.
*****************
Rodney Kelley
MickHartPa <mickh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991221162435...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> I don't always have time (or even inclination) to round up everything and
go to
> another location for a game. I'm curious as to what you folks out there
use
> for solo miniatures rules for the following eras (I game 15mm, 6mm and
(WWII
> only) 20 mm:)
>
> Napoleonic
> SYW
> ACW
> WWII
> Ancients
>
> Thanks in advance for your recommendations/ input.
> Mike
Military Modeling magazine (Nov. 1987) had an article written about a solo
game of the crusades. The writer used a set of his own rules based upon WRG.
While the article did not give the rules, it did give two interesting idea's
for solo wargaming that I have found useful in my own games.
1. 3 sets of written orders for each army involved. Roll dice to determine
which set of orders for the armies.
2. Chance cards for use in the game. I.E. unit moral low, minus 1 on next
moral dice; or; commander bad, ignore next orders.
Also, Wargames Illustratated, issue number 3, had a simple set of WWII
commando solitaire rule that worked fairly well.
If you can not find this issue, let me know, and I will type it out and send
you a copy (as long as it's legal).
I think that what ever set you end up using, will in the long run have to be
greatly simplified and altered in order to make the game flow smoothly,
while resulting in an even chance for both sides. I have found that many of
the "magazine rule's" published in the Courier or Wargames Illustrated
provide the simplicity, but at the same time, depth to make solo gaming
interesting.
I hope this helps a little.
rvke...@mindspring.com
Jerry and Donna Webster
I have spent a great deal of time playing solo games. Probably the best set I've
tried is Piquet. It is seemingly made for the soloist. You can have great games
with no alterations though with some tinkering they are even better. Here are a
couple of reasons they assist you to disassociate yourself with each side.
1. The sequence decks break up the order of play so you cannot readily predict the
phases.
2. The iniative die roll keeps you from knowing who can do what/when and increases
the effects of the sequece deck.
3. Variable unit quality which is rolled for prior to battle or better in the
soloist case during the battle when you need to know it.
4. A bloody/bloodless combat system in which nothing is guarrenteed. So even if
you attempt to favor your favorite units they could very well get thrashed in any
case.
5. The Army morale chips that you receive are variable. You cannot really effect
the overall staying power of each side in the battle.
6. Strategem cards will add some nice spice.
Having become familiar with the system it's a short trip to making your desired
modifications. Take the sequence deck, modify it and turn it into a campaign deck
for each side. Impetus points become Operations points and your off on your solo
campaign using virtually the same rules with slight modifications.
Take Care,
Jerry
Michael Brown
In article <38612...@news1.cluster1.telinco.net>,
"keith" <keit...@currantbun.com> wrote:
SNIP
> I'd also recommend C S Grant's book "Programmed Wargames Scenarios"
to any
> solo gamer, whatever system or period you use. It effectively gives
you an
> opponent, with at least some artificial intelligence. The system he
uses is
> fairly easily adaptable to your own scenarios, or to historical
battles.
>
> Keith
>
I heartily recommend that you find a copy of this book. Better for
Ancients or Horse and Musket. Rules are really not the issue, an
opponent is.
Michael Brown
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Scott L. Karakas
"opponent"?
Scott K.
********************
Michael Brown
games require a method of "Artifical Intelligence". One method is
simply to play both sides. Another is to create decision matricies and
roll die as needed. Another is to develop several plans and have
the "Programmed" side pick one and stick with it.
So the issue is still not the rules, but an "opponent"
In article <3862625F...@uncg.edu>,
Andy O'Neill
deja.com> writes
>the issue is still not the rules, but an "opponent"
Now there are so many quality computer based strategy games available, I
would recommend a look at what's available.
After all, if you post on a newsgroup, the chances are good that you
have a PC capable of running such games.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Liverpool Wargames Association
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/LWA.htm
Theofrieda
several.
I must tell you though, that there is something infinitely more satisfying to
me in pushing miniatures across a nicely terrained table. I've got all these
darn little guys now and, by gosh, I want to use them!
That's the reason I asked for recommendations for solo rule sets/ solo rules
ideas.
Happy New Year,
Mike
(MickH...@aol.com)
PMSA95
these are designed with the solo gamer in mind. There is a nice Iraqi response
table for enemy reactions, and an interesting strategic phase to better
identify missions. SAS are based individually and the Iraqi's are based on
common bases of 4-5. The rules include some good background. They seem to
involve about 8-12 SAS and up to 35 or so Iraqi's plus an occassional vehicle,
depending on the mission. I haven't used them yet, but am looking forward to
picking up some figures and giving these a go.
Paulonious
MongolKahn
Dan D. Cyr
rjo...@rmi.net
>
>Thats what we hear.
>
>MongolKahn wrote:
>
>> Try PK. You make up a plan, deploy and the game almost plays itself.
>
BJ: Which is why hearsay isn't allowed at trials-it can be so misleading and
uninformed.
But perhaps I am unfairly reading into your remarks that r.m.g.h. negativity so
decried by others, and you were only commenting on the fact that the game
mechanics are easily learned in the step by step play of the game.
I'll choose to believe the latter.
Have a really nice day, Dan. :-)
BJ
Dan D. Cyr
it. Looking forward to the next release (add-on).
Dan
MongolKahn
to accomplish the scenario objectives, and a well thought out deployment PK
does "almost play itself".The "right" things to do during the game, are for the
most part intuitively obivious, so you can sit back and enjoy. I find the
challenge and enjoyment of PK in the "pre-game festivities"...........Gary (The
Old One)
Dan Higdon
news:20000103181456...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
"Different strokes for different folks", I guess. For me, the pre-game
festivities
are what have prevented me from playing PK. I own a copy of the basic rules
and Archon, and while I really like the idea of PK, I'm just not that
interested
in making up unit rosters, etc. Sad though it may seem, DBA is about
perfect
for my needs - premade army lists, simple deployment rules, absolutely NO
book keeping (the best feature of all, IMHO). I'm neither a PK fanatic nor
a detractor; I think the rules are brilliant, but the game isn't something I
want
to ramp up to play at this time.
For me, another turn-off of Archon in particular is that the "build a Roman
army" example in the rules results in an army that bears very little
resemblance
to the Roman armies detailed in various sources (Osprey, Polybius, etc.).
This apparent descrepancy makes me question the validity of the otherwise
interesting army composition rules. I will grant that the spirit of PK is
"roll your own", and that I could just make an army the way I want to, but
it's not like the composition of Roman armies around 200BC is all that
mysterious. I'll also grant that making an army isn't something you have to
do a lot of, and once you've made a few, you can bash them together all
weekend without a further thought about horse to foot ratios and elite unit
percentages.
(As a side note, "Hannibal Ad Portas" is an excellent Punic war supplement,
and the Roman army compositions described within are beautifully detailed,
and well justified historically. If you're at all interested in PK Punics,
you
MUST own this supplement!)
Having said all that, if you can stand some book keeping and a lot of
work "prepping" for a game, then PK looks like a fantastic choice for
solo gaming. With the possible caveat that certain rule mechanics are
geared
towards "competition" against the other player, such as the morale chips.
Brilliant concept, but possibly a little strange for solo play, where there
is no
other player to "stick it to".
Dan Higdon
Scott L. Karakas
comments in regard to solitaire play in PK and Archon.
Dan Higdon wrote:
> "Different strokes for different folks", I guess. For me, the pre-game
> festivities are what have prevented me from playing PK. I own a copy of the
> basic rules and Archon, and while I really like the idea of PK, I'm just not
> that
> interested in making up unit rosters, etc. Sad though it may seem, DBA is
> about
> perfect for my needs - premade army lists, simple deployment rules,
> absolutely NO
> book keeping (the best feature of all, IMHO). I'm neither a PK fanatic nor
> a detractor; I think the rules are brilliant, but the game isn't something I
> want to ramp up to play at this time.
SK: "Different strokes" indeed! To me, the ability to create units with
individual missile, melee and morale characteristics is one of the most
enjoyable features of PK and Archon. And while there is indeed substantial
"prep time" involved, there is no further bookkeeping required once a PK battle
has begun. In contrast, for me fielding a handful of identical "blade" units
time after time would be incredibly boring. But that's one of the really nice
things about the current proliferation of wargaming rules: whether one prefers
pre-made lists, relatively uniform troop types and capabilities, and total
control on the battle field, or units individually prepared for each battle,
and limited control once the battle begins, or something in between, there is a
set of wargaming rules to satisfy each of these kinds of tastes. Vive le
difference!
> For me, another turn-off of Archon in particular is that the "build a Roman
> army" example in the rules results in an army that bears very little
> resemblance to the Roman armies detailed in various sources (Osprey,
> Polybius, etc.). This apparent descrepancy makes me question the validity of
> the otherwise
> interesting army composition rules. I will grant that the spirit of PK is
> "roll your own", and that I could just make an army the way I want to, but
> it's not like the composition of Roman armies around 200BC is all that
> mysterious. I'll also grant that making an army isn't something you have to
> do a lot of, and once you've made a few, you can bash them together all
> weekend without a further thought about horse to foot ratios and elite unit
> percentages.
SK: I'll agree wholeheartedly that the army lists are one of the weakest
features of Archon, but I think that is by design. In the PK Master Rules and
other places, the author has often stated that he doesn't care much for
"definitive" army lists and a "Chinese menu" approach to building armies using
points systems. Of the four methods given for creating PK armies, historical
OOB's are #1, scenario-based armies are #2, points-based forces are #3, and the
Card Divisor Table method is #4. All the CDT does is insure that, once the
total number of units available to each side has been determined (20 for the
example given in Archon), there is a historical percentage allotted for each
troop type. The Roman army example in Archon does this reasonably well,
whereas I've seen far too many examples of "Imperial Roman" armies, created for
other rules using point systems, which consist of 50% light infantry, and less
than 35% legionaries!
Once again, it's simply a matter of individual taste. If one wants to have all
of the historical research and analysis done for them beforehand, then highly
detailed army lists can be a very useful resource. OTOH, if one prefers to do
one's own research, and only desires a few examples of how that research can be
translated into units that fit into the mechanics of the rules, then the PK
lists are quite adequate. Having said that, as an ancients gamer, of course
I've tinkered with the Archon tables and army lists quite a bit (old habits die
hard), to better fit my reading of the historical record. This sort of
"tweaking" is quite easily done PK, and is in fact actively encouraged by the
author of the rules. If you are interested, you can see some of the personal
adjustments made by myself and others in the House Rules section at the
Official Piquet Gamers' site at http://www.piquet.org
> (As a side note, "Hannibal Ad Portas" is an excellent Punic war supplement,
> and the Roman army compositions described within are beautifully detailed,
> and well justified historically. If you're at all interested in PK Punics,
> you MUST own this supplement!)
SK: I couldn't agree more! Glenn Pruitt has done a truly masterful job with
HAP, and his work is an excellent example of the sort of historically oriented
"tweaking" possible within a system as flexible as PK.
In regard to Dan's comments on morale chips in PK, these are simply a visible
way of monitoring your army's ability to fight, and using them well is crucial
to success in battle. As a form of wargaming abstraction, I don't see them as
being any more "competition" oriented than, say, morale pips, unit break point
levels, or other methods of measuring an army's "battleworthiness."
Again, it's simply a matter of individual taste. All miniatures rules utilize
various types of abstractions, in order to produce the types of battles the
designers and players want to see. Different forms of abstractions produce
differing results, and often appeal to different kinds of wargamers. No single
set of rules can possibly satisfy everyone, and as Dan has suggested, DBA and
Archon are likely to appeal to very different kinds of wargamers. The trick is
determining which kind of wargamer you are, and which miniatures rulesets are
likely to give you the kind of wargaming experience you are looking for.
As alway, just my two denarii's worth!
Scott K.
Dan Higdon
news:38721ED1...@uncg.edu...
> I'd like to take a moment and respond to Dan's admirably fair and balanced
> comments in regard to solitaire play in PK and Archon.
Imagine - a civil discussion of PK on this list. (I hope I didn't just jinx
it....)
> SK: I'll agree wholeheartedly that the army lists are one of the weakest
> features of Archon, but I think that is by design.
<snip discussion of PK army list philosophy and CDT explanation>
That explains a lot, and helps me wrap my head around what it is in PK
that I don't like, given my affection for the rules concepts. I'm not a
very
good scenario designer, and I have only passing interest in recreating
historical battles. Consequently, while I too find hard-coded army lists a
little limiting, I'm williing to tollerate them in order to have a somewhat
ballanced game that is easy to set up. ("Different strokes" again.)
With regards to solo play, this criterion becomes much less important, since
the whole endeavor of scenario design, army construction, battle planning,
and finally the battle itself, can rightly be considered "play". Likewise,
recreating a battle is often not a ballanced game, but if you're playing
against yourself, what does that matter?
So, I agree with Scott about PK's extreme suitability for solo play.
> Again, it's simply a matter of individual taste. All miniatures rules
utilize
> various types of abstractions, in order to produce the types of battles
the
> designers and players want to see. Different forms of abstractions
produce
> differing results, and often appeal to different kinds of wargamers. No
single
> set of rules can possibly satisfy everyone, and as Dan has suggested, DBA
and
> Archon are likely to appeal to very different kinds of wargamers. The
trick is
> determining which kind of wargamer you are, and which miniatures rulesets
are
> likely to give you the kind of wargaming experience you are looking for.
Quite right! And the beauty of having so many choices available is that if
I grow
tired of my current rules, I can always find something fresh to play.
Just my two scheckles,
hdan
Scott L. Karakas
> That explains a lot, and helps me wrap my head around what it is in PK
> that I don't like, given my affection for the rules concepts. I'm not a
> very good scenario designer, and I have only passing interest in recreating
> historical battles. Consequently, while I too find hard-coded army lists a
> little limiting, I'm williing to tollerate them in order to have a somewhat
> ballanced game that is easy to set up. ("Different strokes" again.)
SK: Absolutely. DBA and DBM are eminently suited to creating balanced forces,
quick set-ups, and tournament-style play. In my experience, PK (along with
several other rulesets) tends to appeal to wargamers who are more interested in
historical refights and historically-based scenarios. Vive le difference!
> With regards to solo play, this criterion becomes much less important, since
> the whole endeavor of scenario design, army construction, battle planning,
> and finally the battle itself, can rightly be considered "play". Likewise,
> recreating a battle is often not a ballanced game, but if you're playing
> against yourself, what does that matter?
SK: Exactly! Well said, Dan.
Wow, a confirmed DBA fan and a PK "zealot" have actually managed to conduct a
sane, rational discussion on r.g.m.h., and the earth is still spinning on its
axis! Many thanks for sharing your thoughts, and for helping confirm that such
a thing is indeed possible!
Scott K.
Mike Parrott
Thanks for your reply to my query. I'd like very much to see the article you
described from Wargames Illust #3 about WWII commando solitaire. I've looked
around for this issue from my various sources and on the web but have been
unable to find it. If you wouldn't mind, I'd very much like you to send it.
Please note, my address has changed. I used to be MickHartPa, now I'm
Mparrott429. Thanks and best wishes to you and yours -
Mike