Home Forums General General Bias & Solo Games

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
  • #182881
    Avatar photoWhirlwind

    A few thoughts about my own biases in solo gaming.

    Avatar photoThuseld

    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.


    Avatar photoMike Headden

    Perhaps, Whirlwind, the problem is that you are actually pro-French and just very bad tactically. ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

    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 data

    Avatar photoAndrew Beasley

    Change Blame 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.


    Avatar photoWhirlwind

    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.ย  But worth a try at some point!

    Avatar photoWhirlwind

    And thanks all, some good ideas throughout.

    Avatar photoNorm S

    I have posted on you blog, but am on an iPad, so couldnโ€™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 ๐Ÿ™‚

    Avatar photoWhirlwind

    Found it Norm – very many thanks.

    Avatar photoLes Hammond

    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


    Avatar photoOotKust

    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.

    YMMV… d

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.