Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No clubs in the area. Closest one i found is a two hour drive. So I'm debating just playing games against myself. I told my wife she doesnt want me playing with myself so she needs to play with me. To which she told me to quit trying to drag her to the dark side. Yes i offered cookies but she didnt bite.

So i would like suggestions for 1000 pt narrative games i could play. I have Death Night army (who doesnt one these days) and everyone's favorite space pirates, Drukhari. i have a ton of terrain and a grass mat and a stone walkway mat. need ideas to keep me going.

Have you thought about Vassal or Tabletop Simulator to scratch the hobby itch?

Play a turn a day, one side only. If it works for you, helps separate the double think and keeps the sides separate. Have fun!

This is a great question, and there are tons of ways to do it.

1. Simply play as normal. Easiest and most straight forward.

2. Create a simple A.I. style command structure of "If This; Then That" style options for one side to operte with once the game begins. For example: If unit is in cover, stay still and shoot. If not in cover, move towards nearest cover and then shoot at closest enemy, etc.

3. Use a blind system where you place random tokens on the board, and when a friendly unit moves within 24 inches or shoots at it, or charges it; the toekn is revealed. It maybe any unit or no unit at all.

4. Have enemy forces move in from reserve from off the board. The unit is randomly determined, and always moves towards the opposite board edge on first turn. Then combine with option 2.

5. Have a set of cards that equal commands. I.e. Move Forward into Cover, Shoot or Charge closest enemy. Randomly draw a command card per unit on the enemy side.

6. Combine a bunch of these together and see what comes out the other side!

If you want to see some systems that use this, try Two-Hour Wargames and The Men Who Would Be Kings as examples to get your mind working.

Playing solo is pretty much the same as playing in "semi co-op" way when you set your goal to "find the best solution". It's quite fun on it's own and playing Maelstrom or custom asymetric scenarios keep such games from being too easily solvable (matched style Eternal War is pretty much the worst for solo play as it is just a dice rolling fest as everything else is ultimately solvable at listbuilding or deployment stages). Focus on themed lists for both sides and then work with whatever is on the table to achieve tasks at hand in the most optimal manner you can think of - this way even playing solo actually improves your skill in normal conditions and provide intelectual challenges that still yeld spectacular narrative moments. And most definitely use a lot more terrain than in a typical matched play batrep - you cannot outsmart/trick yourself so instead of easy setups that depend on limited knowledge of what enemy is going to do next, go with difficult setups that push you on the very limits of what you can predict about outcome of your actions. Try to unfold the story from what is embedded within terrain/mission/lists/ruleset combo rather than recreate a pre-planned one.

Hope that this was clear enough description of what I have in mind...

Playing with yourself is frowned upon .. you can go blind and develop hairy palms..

(at least that I what I recall from growing up)

 Yetti82 wrote:
I told my wife she doesnt want me playing with myself so she needs to play with me. To which she told me to quit trying to drag her to the dark side. Yes i offered cookies but she didnt bite.

Ah marriage.

I always end up cheating...

If you come up with some basic "AI" rules for the opposing force to follow (something simple like: if its a "shooty" unit and it's in cover, stay in cover, otherwise move to nearest cover. Shoot closest allowed target. If it's a "fighty" unit, move towards nearestr enemy then charge, that sort of thing), you can let the opposing army "play itself". You'll probably want to handicap your force against it, as it won't play optimally.

If it were me, I'd play things like special ops missions - the original Kill Team rules, or the sentries rules from Necromunda/Shadow War/Underhive, with a small force of elites (or an Imperial Assassin, etc) vs a horde of hapless goons rather than trying to do standard games and running from one side of the table to the other like Billy Whizz playing tennis.

"AI" idea isn't IMO that good. What fun playing against predictable army? You can then game that and it won't feel at all like playing real game. Much better(IMO) to simply try to think at the situation neutrally and try to play both armies as you would playing against humans.

Yeah hard to surprise enemy but then again it's 40k. Hard to surprise enemy with tactical moves anyway

"What fun playing against predictable army"? Apparently people like playing computer games, so there must be an appeal. .

Computer AI can at least initially appear less predictable than what you are likely able to write down without it being playing against yourself thinking neutrally how you would play it.

But there's whole swathes of gaming tactics which rely on exploiting the quirks of the game AI - be that timing speed runs in Mario Bros or getting the monsters to fight each other in Doom.

It's just another form of problem-solving. Set up the situation, see how well your choice of troops and tactics do, then try again or move on to a more difficult challenge.

I think we'll need to agree to disagree; To me, playing both sides robs the game of some of its narrative force.

The worst thing about having yourself as an opponent is that you end up winning less than half the time ...

Half the time I don't even know what I'm thinking, I've got no chance trying to guess what the other me wants.

You'd have to alter the way you play the game substantially, but it's doable. You'd need an AI system (tokens, cards, etc.), and I'd ditch the IGOUGO method that 40K normally uses. I find solo-play is good for playtesting, etc., but it never truly scratches the itch.

I feel your pain. I have indeed played several games against myself.
I can be fun as an experiment to try certain units against others.

I used to do this as I didn't have a car to get to the LGS and I now do this because I have a family and not as much time to go to the LGS.
I keep trying to get my 11 & 13 years olds into the game, but they are thoroughly corrupted by video games and get board of table-top games after like a turn or 2 (and thus I end up finishing the game myself)

-

One advantage is that you never have a rules dispute or play TFG.

Some really good ideas I paid for the tabletop simulator so at least I will get to play a game against my friend 2k miles away. And have enlisted my 10 yr old to play. Had to setup in a corner of my office so we can play a game without looking up the kitchen table. Playing battle for the relic in the middle. Figured one objective would make it easier. And figuring out what all I can actually roll to randomize the game scenario and locations for everything. Hoping with having it out of the way in the corner we can do a round a day

If you do opt to play "full games" using two armies pitting yourself against yourself, I would suggest using objective based games/card missions (for 40k) as, in theory, it should limit you using tactics to favor one side over another.

Basically, using cards/objectives for each side, it can really separate your thinking because its pretty rare that both sides will have the same goals.

 Easy E wrote:
One advantage is that you never have a rules dispute or play TFG.

Given some of the people I've met on this forum, I wouldn't count that out.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
But there's whole swathes of gaming tactics which rely on exploiting the quirks of the game AI - be that timing speed runs in Mario Bros or getting the monsters to fight each other in Doom.

It's just another form of problem-solving. Set up the situation, see how well your choice of troops and tactics do, then try again or move on to a more difficult challenge.

I think we'll need to agree to disagree; To me, playing both sides robs the game of some of its narrative force.

Well yes but with computers you at least need to play against it once or twice to figure out AI and how to play it yes? Or do you seriously claim that you take say new game off the shelf and you INSTANTLY know how to game the AI without even trying it once?

IF you do then congrats for super ability. I require at least few attempts to see what the AI pattern is.

With miniatures however AI is so simple it's cracked before you even first time roll a dice...So there's not even challenge of cracking AI.

And playing against super simple AI doesn't rob narrative force? For me that robs ALL narrative force as the AI wouldn't play at all sensibly.

That's why you add randomization in with blinds, reserves, objectives, and unusual deployment as well. It adds layers to relatively simple AI that make it much harder to predict.

I’d really like to see a co-op version for 40K; two or more players set up against an AI controlled (perhaps by app) enemy and try to bring it down.

At least it seems like it’d be fun for a ‘Nid invasion (playing the defenders) or Ork WAAAGH campaign (playing either side - as attackers would be crazy fun if you add in Secret Agendas).

The roughest part of doing a self-game would be trying to be objective about what side you "want" to win. I'd love to playtest some builds before rushing out to get the models, but using two of my armies against each other, especially if one is a "favorite" army, would inevitably lead me to make actions that unfairly favored that one force. It's VERY hard to be objective in that case.

I've never had a problem with self-play. I am just as ruthless and helpful in equal measure when playing each side as I am when I am playing another person.

I have no problem in any game, yes even in a tourney, pointing out something to an opponent who forgets to do something or is doing something that really isn't a good idea.

IMO my goal has always been to have the most fun and to face the best possible opponent I can. It isn't any fun to just stomp my way through battles with someone who maybe isn't so good. I'd rather face a monster that pushes my limits.

How else can I ever hope to improve and become better?

Also, the DICE tell the story. So when playing solo, love the dice. Let the story talk. Let it write itself for you. Dive into it, embrace the fickle dice and have a good time.

I used to think playing against yourself is silly but actually it helps to train your ways of thinking.

Can we have a batrep please?

Missed opportunity to entitle the thread "Playing with yourself". What a shame.

I think playing any social game alone is infinitely less exciting than playing with other people. I've played a few solo board games such as Eldritch Horror by myself and whenever an epic moment happens you're kinda gutted there's no-one there to share it with you. I tell my wife but she a) has no idea what's going on and b) couldn't care less.

There would not be any surprises. Lets face it that surprises are what makes a game interesting.

My two cents,

CB

I would recommend Osprey Wargames 'The Men Who would be Kings...'

It's a colonial era skirmish game, but it's got a wonderful system in it for solo play - the aptly titled 'Playing against Mr Babbage.'

It can be adapted for other games.

One Hour Wargaming also has a good section on solo play.

Hope that helps.

I have Advanced HeroQuest and Chainsaw warrior for solo play.