One way to make solitaire a little more interesting.

[JWW]

I play exclusively solitaire, and I do two things that make solitaire a little more interesting. I tried the Command/control option but did not really like that. Here are a couple of suggestions.

1. Let the AI do all the firing. That adds some uncertainty, especially when you're getting ready to assault a hex and find your artillery firing at something on the flank instead of the "obvious" target hex, and even your assaulting units sometimes firing at neighboring hexes instead of the planned hex. Note that this doesn't work as well with the defensive fire phase in Napoleonic Wars since units will sometimes make formation changes and such that you hadn't counted on. But then you might chalk that up to command/control problems and curse the brigade commander's incompetence and play on.

2. Smaller scenarios. There are some really good smaller scenarios where the AI plays much better and it is hard to gain a victory due to the setup and conditions, depending on the side you are playing. One is Faces to the Foe in Bull Run, for example. I've played that several times this week as the Confederates and been unable to do better than a draw due to the setup and conditions.

3. And if you're really old school, like Avalon Hill boardgame old school, play hotseat against yourself for an interesting experience sometimes.

I really enjoy the Tiller games, Napoleon, Civil War, and WWII, and enjoy playing solitaire despite the AI limitations.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: JW

I play exclusively solitaire, and I do two things that make solitaire a little more interesting. I tried the Command/control option but did not really like that.

Me neither. I find Commander Control to be disappointing.

1. Let the AI do all the firing.

Interesting. I'll give that a try.

2. Smaller scenarios. There are some really good smaller scenarios where the AI plays much better and it is hard to gain a victory due to the setup and conditions, depending on the side you are playing.

I prefer smaller scenarios, due to my limited free time.

I am starting to cycle through all the scenarios at the

Napoleonic Archive

Some great scenarios there, including the small-scale ones.

3. And if you're really old school, like Avalon Hill boardgame old school, play hotseat against yourself for an interesting experience sometimes.

I started in the war gaming hobby playing AH games over 47 years ago. I guess that makes me old school.

And, yes, old habits are hard to break. Because I use these games more to learn than to compete and win, I prefer hot-seat solitaire for most of my games.

I really enjoy the Tiller games, Napoleon, Civil War, and WWII, and enjoy playing solitaire despite the AI limitations.

Ditto.

I find that it helps if you "play pretend" Fog of War, also as much as possible try to put yourself in the frame of mind of the actual historical commanders and try not to think too much in terms of gaming and beating the system.

But your suggestions are good ones.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: JW

I play exclusively solitaire, and I do two things that make solitaire a little more interesting...

1. Let the AI do all the firing...

I tried that. It has some appeal, not the least of which it makes the games go quicker. Also, limiting absolute control and introducing more randomness are worthy goals in general.

But, all things considered, I'm not sure I like it because

• The AI fires every unit, even if the only suitable targets are at an extended range and/or behind protective covering (walls, breastworks, woods, etc.), hence the odds of scoring hits are poor.
• Because of that, units run out of ammo much more often, and artillery ammo depletes much more quickly.
• Units about to melee assault will fire, when you really don't want them to (so as not to incur the fire-before-melee malus).
• Battles will tend to have ahistorically, unrealistically high casualties.

Sigh. No end of trade-offs, is there?

[Holdit66]

Here's a really old school approach that I'm currently experimenting with: graft your favourite miniature command & control rules onto the game. My experiment involves a mix of Napoleon's Battles and Valmy to Waterloo. I've played one scenario this way so far (Montebello 1800), and it defintiely makes the game interesting, although it's too early to tell if it's actually worth the effort.

H

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: JW

I play exclusively solitaire, and I do two things that make solitaire a little more interesting ...

I'm new to Tiller, having just bought his Gettyburg and Antietam games; at first I was disappointed at the graphics, but was pleasantly surprised at the depth and options, like using the AI feature after making the moves I wanted to avoid micro-manage an entire battle.

The idea of a campaign mode w/options reflected by variations of scenarios reminds me of the old Panzer General campaign tree.

Very smart gaming, and reasonably priced. In fact, except for the graphics, Tiller almost reminds me CDV's Combat Missions.