solitaire play??

[Poor Yorek]

Another aspect of solo play vs. FTF is pace of play. I think this is the primary reason why TheDoctor and I play fewer FTF scenarios than might otherwise be expected. He likes Blitz chess, I find it abhorrent (ditto with our PG pace-of-play). Funny, though, when chores come around it seems the other way around ::cough::

[tlangston28]

I would definitely concur with Elsenborn Ridge. That was my first purchase and it was a good one. I have played about half solo / half skype from this module and found it fun both ways.
I think the biggest difference for me is that I tend to play less for the victory and more for the "experience" when soloing if that makes any sense.

[Michael Murphy]

I would definitely concur with Elsenborn Ridge. That was my first purchase and it was a good one. I have played about half solo / half skype from this module and found it fun both ways.
I think the biggest difference for me is that I tend to play less for the victory and more for the "experience" when soloing if that makes any sense.

As a solo player, I always win, unless I quit or draw. My biggest thrill is the immersion that PG gives me as I play. That's the draw for me. I've three good games just this past week alone. Right now, I'm an hour in to Saipan #1, and it's shaping up to be another good game.

[vince hughes]

LOL - And a couple of other factors on the ftf / solo thing.

I know that the "old carmudgeon" that has been responsible for most of the ftf play generally picks his scenarios from either

a) Random picks (meaning not selected himself). Therefore without doubt ensuring there are going to be less plays to his personal preference.

b) That carmudgeon fella likes to play a series of linked games(either same battle or same units involved in a battle) and again that will mean less selected preferential scenarios and more 'general' scenarios.

Looking at probably the three most prolific players of hth play, they score 3.31, 3.08 and 2.99. All under the solo average radar. It is also interesting as to how people rate the scenarios.

I like to rate them in relation to each other, so 3 would be the floating standard. I then rate the others compared to that. There may be other players who rate them by how much fun they had. There is one player I see with around 70 games that rates all their plays as 4 and 5's. This is probably how much fun he has had as opposed of their ratings against each other ? His average rating will be around a '4'.

The ratings in themselves can provide quite a number of 'answers' to one question !

[waynebaumber]

Bill,

PG plays well solo, unless Pacific warfare is your bag I would not start with Guadalcanel. Elsenborn Ridge is excellent module to start with IMHO

Its strange that I enjoy solo play as much as FtF but both are very different experiences. I rate games on balance, fun and content. Even if a game is fun and balanced it will lose rating marks from me if I have to finish developing the scenario during play (ex AK33) or their are ambiguous special rules (eg SF22). Also if I lose in a FtF the scenario may lose another point (hence my rather low average rating in FtF games)