david53 wrote:Paul from Canada has tried this sure he'll contact you soon.
A good thing I noticed this otherwise I would have made a liar out of Dave!
Yes, I do use special rules for solo play. The main challenge is to restrict options of the commanders, otherwise you'll be trying to "out think yourself" and that usually means that the winning side will be determined by your bias. You'd be surprised at how much bias you might have, for whatever reason - such as preferring army A over B, preferring smaller armies, etc.
WRG had a publication authored by Charles Grant on solo wargaming. It's designed so you can play either side A or side B with the other side being "programmed". I prefer to use both sides as "programmed". It does take some adjusting of the details to FoG armies and play but it is possible. Some advantages of the solo play using these restrictions are:
1) By using composition restrictions you end up with troop types in an army that would never appear in a tournament. That's actually more realistic since real life commanders often had to make do with what they had. I'm sure at Zama Hannibal would have preferred not to have poor infantry but lots of veteran armoured spearmen. I create different options based on variations in composition for each army and then roll for the one I'll use.
2) Deployment constraints mean that opposing forces aren't optimized to fight each but are often stuck in inappropriate places - again, just like real life. In some Persian - Greek games I played (in the AAR forum) the Persians had numerical superiority but were really restricted in their deployment area which gave them problems as they tried to "shake out" their lines to exploit their numerical advantage (tough when you're army isn't that manoeuvreable).
3) There should be random options for the battle plan. This produces situations, such as Persians attacking armoured hoplites head-on, which is something they wouldn't do in a tournament but just might happen in real life. If the options produce results that are insane then some modification might be needed. Another way around this is to play it once as indicated by the random plan and then to play the game again making modifications based on the "lessons" from the previous battle.
4) Scenario can be used with objectives, point differences between armies, attacker-defender games, etc. This can avoid some of the tournament problems involving LH versus HF armies.
I usually play the same scenario several times - often with different armies and even from different eras. I have most recently fought an English Civil War battle using FoG:R and then fought the same scenario with Persian vs Carthaginian forces. The fun for me is to see how the tactical advantages of the scenario change across these different match ups.
The main disadvantage of solo play is you don't have the fun of a thinking opponent (which might be giving too many gamers too much credit). However, that means it will take you longer to learn the tricks as you won't have the advantage of seeing how the good, experienced players "do it", but you can get a lot of ideas here on the forum - even if Strategos believes I have a predisposition to frontal attacks (not true Strategos!).
I've posted several AAR solo games for both FoG:AM and FoG:R.
One last thing - if you find that you really are biased for a particular army type I remember someone suggesting that you can subtract from your dice rolls (which might be a very drastic choice in FoG). I've never done that. Maybe I should as all of my smaller, defending forces have always beaten their attackers - or it could just be that it's easier to be a defender and I need more experience with being an attacker.
Let me know if you have any specific questions, but I have provided a fair bit on how I set up the solo games on various Greek vs Persian AAR that are reported here.