A new way to play CM as a solo player

[markgame]

Originally posted by Wilhammer:

Seriously, this idea is not new. In Ye Olde Days of board wargames, one might say most playtime was done doing exactly this. solitaire play on both sides.

I remember Strategy and Tactics magazine early in their run did a survey and found that the more than half of all players did play solo almost exclusively. Made me feel like I was part of some great big club that never has meetings.

Part of the problem in the sixties and seventies was the difficulty in finding someone who would actually want to play a wargame! The term was not a popular one during that time period.

And of course another problem was finding someone who would spend the time to learn the game properly. That's why I played Advanced Squad Leader solo. Just one look at that notebook full of rules was enough to trigger the "slowly back out of the room" reaction.

BTW, playing chess solo isn't that unusual. It's a way to practise openings and learn how to "read" the board.

[Le Tondu]

This idea of James' is great. It's not for everyone because it takes an ability to detach oneself from what you just did on the other side. Getting "deep" into the turn that you just played and ignoring what went on before. I can certainly that some folks here might have a real problem doing that.

James is to be applauded for this idea. NOT ridiculed! He presented the idea in an entertaining way with due enthusiasm. How we play CM shouldn't be a more severe issue than if it is played.

Good going James. Thanks for being brave. I'll continue to give it a go.

[second amendment]

Heres an idea that might help to break up the fact that you are playing with ahem yourself

Get out a pen and paper and create modifiers for each side of the game and number them. Upon each turn you roll some dice to see if there is an affect on your turn.

[manchildstein (ii)]

'self-hotseat' can be useful in certain situations...

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

'self-hotseat' can be useful in certain situations...

Yeah, I know. I always get hot when I sit beside myself because I'm so damned good looking.

[tiborhead]

I'm with you, James. Granted, it does take a great deal of role-playing to pull this off in any satisfactory way. One thing that seems to work in solving the "I know what the other side is doing" problem is to use the experience level, and command ratings of your platoon leaders/company commanders. The theory is to issue orders that correspond to these ratings. A green commander with no command bonus would probably be more likely to make bad decisions, and not be able to read the "flow of the battle", so to speak, as a veteran commander. It seems to work for me.

Also, if you take the time to work it out, you can limit the effect of universal spotting. If your T34 can't see that PZIV sneaking up around that house, he should not be able to react to the threat.

If you can separate yourself the obvious limitations such a game carries, it's actually quite fun. Plus, your record will always be 50/50!

[Alkiviadis]

It's really not that hard to implement.

A little advanced planning before one starts,

EFOG, Multiple movement commands/unit/turn, and MOST IMPORTANT: COVER/ARMOR ARCS for every unit.

Commands issued may only be changed upon contact

of some sort.

One must also maintain an objective ruthlessness,

...no favorites, play both sides to WIN, you'll be surprised.

[Sunflower Farm Boy]

Sit down at your computer with a shot glass and a big ole bottle of your fav liquor. [ed. note: throw in a bongload of fresh NL#5]. Get absolutely ****faced and fire up CMBB/CMBO...

Now you're talking! I'll PBEM you anyday of the week. Actually our game may take a few weeks the shape we'll be in!

[Chad Harrison]

This works best when you have a dual personality.

[kevinkins]

I wonder if this hotseat idea would be of any use in playtesting scenarios for 2 player battles?

As an "old board gamer" I use to push those counters around myself for hours. If I recall their was a set of AI rules for this for Squad Leader. I will check my old General issues and report back.

I also remember I developed a set of rules for platoon scale games like Panzer Blitz. Basically the rules instructed the "human AI" where to move and fire based on a roll of the dice. If the "human AI" was attacking they would be more likely to move than fire until the objective was met. The system allowed for some human control of the exact path of movement and target selection. However, it gave general orders that had to be "obeyed". So the human AI did not have absolute control over that sides forces. So in a hot seat game you would play one with using the rules and the other without the rules. The system produced some pretty good results. It was coded into a visual basic program that rolled the dice and reported the results. I think the program is on my dad's PC.

Kevin

[BulletRat]

Ya, as far as I'm concerned it's about as pointless as playing chess against yourself - you know exactly what the opposing side will do, and it'll pretty much come down to luck as in which units will take out which.

[Firefly]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

This works best when you have a dual personality.

Or short term memory problems.

[kevinkins]

The article was in General Vol 18 No 5 1982

page 29 "The Lone Fox - a solitare system for Tobruk". Tobruk is a squad level game published in the late 70's.

There is no substitute for playing another person. But given the popularity of playing the AI folks are trying to find ways to improve its performance - even trying an experimental hot seat approach.

[James]

Hey chaps, stand by your beds! Today i'm going to produce what could be the worlds first tailor made solo head to head senario for CM. It will be heavy on the role-play. The briefing will contain not only the tatical stuation but the character, motivation and conflict between the officers. It can also be played as a normal loose/win game. I've played this one a few times and its a close run thing for either side. Anyone wanting the senario can mail me via the link. The briefings should be ready in a few hours if I'm not disturbed by normal life.

[Henri]

Like others here, I used to do that all the time with boardgames (and I must admit to not doing it with computers).

There is one advantage to playing this way: one can learn a lot more about tactics and counter-tactics than while playing against the AI, since you control both sides. One can try to see how a specific tactic works against a specific defence, or more useful, to find the best tactic against a specific defense.And one can focus on a specific part of a battle if one wishes, while "neglecting" the rest.

I used to play "The Russian Campaign" all the time by myself, and I don't think that I could have found all the optimum tactics and strategies that I found by playing against other players or against an AI. And I doubt very much that the optimum strategies published in Avalon Hill's magazine "The General" were found by playing against other players.

As a matter of fact, if I really wanted to "break" a given scenario, I would thnk that the best way to do it is to play both sides hotseat. But because most players like to play a new scenario blind each time, that point is moot.

Henri

[James]

Ok the worlds first solo CM senario is ready for anyone brave enough to try it. Mail me and i'll send it to you.

[Midnight Warrior]

I would think that playing solo games using Level I only rules would somewhat compensate for the increased knowldege. Level I only play reduces one's knowledge of one's own forces which in turn would reduce the knowldge that one would carry over when he changes command roles.

[Wilhammer]

Anyone remember SPI's Wolfpack?

That was the first wargame I ever played that had an AI.