- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by OotKust.
01/02/2023 at 08:28 #182881
A few thoughts about my own biases in solo gaming.01/02/2023 at 09:06 #182882ThuseldParticipant
I have a few thoughts on this.
1. Shall I make my nations “imagi-nations”? I don’t think this would work. In my fictional Sci Fi universe, try as I might to make things equal and fair, there are factions that I like more. One faction tends to mimic my own thoughts on what is right and proper, while an opposing faction is essentially Space Isis.
2. In my failed attempts at running campaigns, I tend to follow one force, and end up connecting with them and hoping for them to survive. Thus I will make the opponents play worse. This is less the case for pick-up games.
3. I have searched for decent AIs, and am even trying to create one for the Battlegroup WW2 rules, but this unwieldly and hard to do. There are some fairly okay simple systems available. Below is one I found on Facebook. I haven’t tried it yet but intend to soon.
Experiments here: http://inexperiencedmodelmaker.blogspot.co.uk/
Tranquil Stars updates: https://tranquilstars.wordpress.com01/02/2023 at 13:44 #182904Mike HeaddenParticipant
Perhaps, Whirlwind, the problem is that you are actually pro-French and just very bad tactically. 😀 😀 😀
OK, more seriously, the suggestion of swapping the sides seems a good first step.
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data03/02/2023 at 03:04 #182957Andrew BeasleyParticipant
ChangeBlame the dice – that’s the normal way out of a loosing streak…
It would be interesting to play the scenarios the ‘wrong way around’ and see if the results change… i.e. Play RED attacking then BLUE attacking – you will have an idea in the second game of what worked or not so the results should be more in favour of the BLUEs then.03/02/2023 at 17:20 #182981
It is a good idea on general prinicples although I am not sure about the specific effect – it pre-supposes that the first game is more informative for one side (winner/loser/attacker/defender) than the other, I think? And we don’t know that. But worth a try at some point!03/02/2023 at 17:21 #182982
And thanks all, some good ideas throughout.04/02/2023 at 06:36 #182987Norm SParticipant
I have posted on you blog, but am on an iPad, so couldn’t copy the post to here prior to hitting the post button and after posting it has gone into moderation – but basically I wrote up some possibilities and solutions and drew the conclusion that it was external factors at play 🙂04/02/2023 at 07:39 #182988
Found it Norm – very many thanks.22/02/2023 at 20:15 #183596Les HammondParticipant
I must be particularly psychotic or have some sort of ‘divergent personality type’ because I am convinced that I can switch allegiances at every turn or even each unit activation..
When it is a unit’s turn I can’t help but focus in on their tactical situation (and orders, obviously)..maybe that’s why my solo games take so long because I am ‘enjoying the moment’.
6mm France 1940
https://www.facebook.com/groups/386297688467965/22/02/2023 at 20:36 #183598OotKustParticipant
TLdR… however, again using packaged scenarios, you seem to expect so much and get so little.
I’ve never seen them and probably never want too. I don’t believe ‘in them’ as they are [all] abstracts.
[When designing games] I only play ‘real-life’ scenarios, even if that means taking a cut of a larger battle and playing out the actions as they existed at the time. I’ve run many campaign style games (sure- only 2-3 a year sometimes between other ‘normal’ games) as a direct Umpire and guide as to what may occur in the ‘unknown’ for players. Everyone seems happy with the ‘fog’ and results.
However I repeat, “I don’t believe ‘in them’ as they are [all] abstracts.”
As to bias, I see none, as described.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.