Deep and intrigueing puzzles is what grabs me the most, a little randomness thrown in for spice, but please not a total luck fest. Allthough some of those can be fun from time to time, too, if you just see them as “watching a train wreck happening”. I love it when games give me a way to build something up with my knowledge and test it against some mechanisms that provide a good story and a good puzzle. It’s why LOTR: LCG is my absolute favorite game of all time (well, ok, the favorite that I actually get to play – if I take MTG into account, which I love more but play less, LOTR: LCG is only second-most favorite 😉 ) and especially my top favorite solo game of all time (no really deep solo variants for MTG, sadly). Deck building is something where I can bring in my knowledge and experience without too many artificial limits, and then I go and try this against an encounter to see how it fares. It’s the closest any solo game has ever come to the MTG experience for me. It is carried by many of the same decision processes like in MTG, especially correct sequencing of answers and threats, the correct management of ressources, the management of active and reactive cards in your hand and the correct time to play them – all that is just plain great.

Another game I love to play solo is Hoplomachus: Origins, because the solo scenarios are cute little “break this game” puzzles. You essentially go in and try to set up your team of gladiators and sequence their actions in a way that reliably breaks the scenario in halves. Due to the randomness of the dice rolls, you can’t be totally sure, even if your strategy is sound, so you have to tactically react and replan during the execution and the whole scenario often is done in 15-20 minutes, which allows to play a bunch of rounds in a go. Again, it’s the solve-the-puzzle aspect that grabs me the most, but again, the game really provides little fun stories of carnage in the arena.

If I go big and sprawly, I tend to go for conflict simulation games or heavily thematic games, like Dawn of the Zeds for example, or the COIN series. In those cases it is less about some puzzles to solve but more about having a great story unfold and experience. But it’s rare for me to play those, due to the time investment.

Deep and intrigueing puzzles is what grabs me the most, a little randomness thrown in for spice, but please not a total luck fest. Allthough some of those can be fun from time to time, too, if you just see them as “watching a train wreck happening”. I love it when games give me a way to build something up with my knowledge and test it against some mechanisms that provide a good story and a good puzzle. It’s why LOTR: LCG is my absolute favorite game of all time (well, ok, the favorite that I actually get to play – if I take MTG into account, which I love more but play less, LOTR: LCG is only second-most favorite 😉 ) and especially my top favorite solo game of all time (no really deep solo variants for MTG, sadly). Deck building is something where I can bring in my knowledge and experience without too many artificial limits, and then I go and try this against an encounter to see how it fares. It’s the closest any solo game has ever come to the MTG experience for me. It is carried by many of the same decision processes like in MTG, especially correct sequencing of answers and threats, the correct management of ressources, the management of active and reactive cards in your hand and the correct time to play them – all that is just plain great.

Another game I love to play solo is Hoplomachus: Origins, because the solo scenarios are cute little “break this game” puzzles. You essentially go in and try to set up your team of gladiators and sequence their actions in a way that reliably breaks the scenario in halves. Due to the randomness of the dice rolls, you can’t be totally sure, even if your strategy is sound, so you have to tactically react and replan during the execution and the whole scenario often is done in 15-20 minutes, which allows to play a bunch of rounds in a go. Again, it’s the solve-the-puzzle aspect that grabs me the most, but again, the game really provides little fun stories of carnage in the arena.

If I go big and sprawly, I tend to go for conflict simulation games or heavily thematic games, like Dawn of the Zeds for example, or the COIN series. In those cases it is less about some puzzles to solve but more about having a great story unfold and experience. But it’s rare for me to play those, due to the time investment.

I think the CL charts are rather easy to get due to them being really simple compared to other COIN games. In the case of the gov bot they tend to be too simple, though. But that way you have at least one opponent you can crush. So yeah, the gov bot can easily be “solved”. But playing solo, you don’t play just one bot – solving the government and crushing it in part helps other bots and they will run right over you (actually in case of the Mafia and the Directorio they will sneak by and cheat you), so the game still works great. The bits in CL definitely faded into the background after a few rounds due to their simplicity.

I think the CL charts are rather easy to get due to them being really simple compared to other COIN games. In the case of the gov bot they tend to be too simple, though. But that way you have at least one opponent you can crush. So yeah, the gov bot can easily be “solved”. But playing solo, you don’t play just one bot – solving the government and crushing it in part helps other bots and they will run right over you (actually in case of the Mafia and the Directorio they will sneak by and cheat you), so the game still works great. The bits in CL definitely faded into the background after a few rounds due to their simplicity.

I think Wiz War needs more than 2 players to shine. You need the chaos of more than 2. And you need to accept that you get tons of rules wrong and misplay stiff and kinda cheat. Otherwise it breaks down in rule lawyering and bickering. It has a very high “rules are on the cards except when they aren’t” factor, meaning you have base rules that get overridden by card rules all the time, but those card rules never being fully explained and defined. It is fun, I agree, but I think you need a specific crowd for it to work.

I think Wiz War needs more than 2 players to shine. You need the chaos of more than 2. And you need to accept that you get tons of rules wrong and misplay stiff and kinda cheat. Otherwise it breaks down in rule lawyering and bickering. It has a very high “rules are on the cards except when they aren’t” factor, meaning you have base rules that get overridden by card rules all the time, but those card rules never being fully explained and defined. It is fun, I agree, but I think you need a specific crowd for it to work.

I only played CL of the two, so can’t provide direct insights, but from my experience with Night of Man, which has an AI kinda similar in structure to the CoH (although admittedly simpler), I found the COIN AI much more believable at times. I think it comes from COIN games being at a strategic level and NM (and CoH) on tactic level. Bad moves are much more visible and recognizable on that level, I think. So during my plays of CL, while the government not was rather bad, it didn’t feel “off” – and the other two boys felt outright sneaky. In NM the AI works, but every so often I am unsatisfied with the behaviour of the enemy, tactic wise. I still loose in both games, so I am not talking about the AIs being too easy. They still beat me. But in one game it felt as if at least two bit factions outplayed me, while in the other game it sometimes felt like the AI won due to dumb luck.

I only played CL of the two, so can’t provide direct insights, but from my experience with Night of Man, which has an AI kinda similar in structure to the CoH (although admittedly simpler), I found the COIN AI much more believable at times. I think it comes from COIN games being at a strategic level and NM (and CoH) on tactic level. Bad moves are much more visible and recognizable on that level, I think. So during my plays of CL, while the government not was rather bad, it didn’t feel “off” – and the other two boys felt outright sneaky. In NM the AI works, but every so often I am unsatisfied with the behaviour of the enemy, tactic wise. I still loose in both games, so I am not talking about the AIs being too easy. They still beat me. But in one game it felt as if at least two bit factions outplayed me, while in the other game it sometimes felt like the AI won due to dumb luck.

I kinda wonder: in one of your videos you talked about liking roleplaying games. But those are filled with “I try to do this, roll for check for success”. So did the RPGishness of this not come through enough for you to feel more in an RPG mood that accepts skill checks? To me this game looks more and more like a better implementation of Pathfinder ACG than actually LOTR LCG, so I am wondering if it could carry that idea, or if t would fall apart just like Pathfinder ACG did for me (the story not being carried enough by mechanics and so it turning into “draw card, roll dice, next”).

I kinda wonder: in one of your videos you talked about liking roleplaying games. But those are filled with “I try to do this, roll for check for success”. So did the RPGishness of this not come through enough for you to feel more in an RPG mood that accepts skill checks? To me this game looks more and more like a better implementation of Pathfinder ACG than actually LOTR LCG, so I am wondering if it could carry that idea, or if t would fall apart just like Pathfinder ACG did for me (the story not being carried enough by mechanics and so it turning into “draw card, roll dice, next”).