Category: Syndicated

I have quite a bunch of games I haven’t played, for various reasons. But they are not a reason for “shame”, since they all have reasons why I didn’t play them so far (most of the time it is needed time investment for some monster or things like that). I try to put my perspective more into the positive and concentrate on how many games I finally got to play (or play again), it makes it much more enjoyable. I’m not reallöy into masochism 😉

I have quite a bunch of games I haven’t played, for various reasons. But they are not a reason for “shame”, since they all have reasons why I didn’t play them so far (most of the time it is needed time investment for some monster or things like that). I try to put my perspective more into the positive and concentrate on how many games I finally got to play (or play again), it makes it much more enjoyable. I’m not reallöy into masochism 😉

well, from my experience with my open game group that meets weekly, but is mostly people who are new’ish to modern board games (but all are quite interested!), I would say that “a couple new games every few weeks” is already pushing it. We make sure we play games multiple times (unless there is some obvious bad vibes with some game, then it gets thrown out of the rotation quickly) over several weeks, keeping a few standbys (one of the favorites of that group is Paperback, which is really a great way to rope people new to modern board games in, as the primary thing you do is building words and if you can read/write in the target language, you can do that) and introducing one new game maybe every two months. Yes, that means going slowly, but it allows people to form an idea about how they like a game. Sure, regular gamerly gamers can form an idea about a game often after the first or maybe second play – but people not that invested into gaming can’t. They really need longer, because the first few plays will be totally confusing. Sure, they might be able to tell you about the feel of the game, but since they very often just don’t see “what to do to win” (even if you tell them!), until they did a few play throughs, you just have to give them time.

I am often very surprised about reactions to games from that group, because things I think are super simple and easy will totally stump them. Take for example Nations: The Dice Game, another nice “civ-y” dice game that can be played quickly. In that group, the game doesn’t finish under one hour. If I play with my wife, it’s 40 minutes tops. But that group comes back with comments like “man, that’s a heavy one”. So we gave it quite a few plays and now can finish in under an hour, but most of them still count it in the “heavy” league.

I don’t want to imagine what would happen if I put The Gallerist on the table, one that I really wouldn’t suggest getting out if you have players that are more up for the light fare 😉

With my wife it was the same – but over time (and we talk years, not months) she became more and more comfortable with board games and nowadays we can break out stuff like Wir sind das Volk and play it through all 4 rounds without her dropping out mid-game. And that’s where we talk about medium-heavy to heavy board games. Still no chance for The Gallerist, though 😉

well, from my experience with my open game group that meets weekly, but is mostly people who are new’ish to modern board games (but all are quite interested!), I would say that “a couple new games every few weeks” is already pushing it. We make sure we play games multiple times (unless there is some obvious bad vibes with some game, then it gets thrown out of the rotation quickly) over several weeks, keeping a few standbys (one of the favorites of that group is Paperback, which is really a great way to rope people new to modern board games in, as the primary thing you do is building words and if you can read/write in the target language, you can do that) and introducing one new game maybe every two months. Yes, that means going slowly, but it allows people to form an idea about how they like a game. Sure, regular gamerly gamers can form an idea about a game often after the first or maybe second play – but people not that invested into gaming can’t. They really need longer, because the first few plays will be totally confusing. Sure, they might be able to tell you about the feel of the game, but since they very often just don’t see “what to do to win” (even if you tell them!), until they did a few play throughs, you just have to give them time.

I am often very surprised about reactions to games from that group, because things I think are super simple and easy will totally stump them. Take for example Nations: The Dice Game, another nice “civ-y” dice game that can be played quickly. In that group, the game doesn’t finish under one hour. If I play with my wife, it’s 40 minutes tops. But that group comes back with comments like “man, that’s a heavy one”. So we gave it quite a few plays and now can finish in under an hour, but most of them still count it in the “heavy” league.

I don’t want to imagine what would happen if I put The Gallerist on the table, one that I really wouldn’t suggest getting out if you have players that are more up for the light fare 😉

With my wife it was the same – but over time (and we talk years, not months) she became more and more comfortable with board games and nowadays we can break out stuff like Wir sind das Volk and play it through all 4 rounds without her dropping out mid-game. And that’s where we talk about medium-heavy to heavy board games. Still no chance for The Gallerist, though 😉

Maybe look for some 1-vs-all games where you can be the beastly overlord and the other players a coop group bound to take you down. If you are the big bad boy at the table, transfer that to the game and let the game take care of it 🙂

Actually one of the KS I am on – Days of Ire – will allow me right that, me playing a deep CDG while my opponents together kinda play a variant on Pandemic, where I am throwing out problems they have to tackle to stay alive and swing for the win.

Or play games with higher luck factor, where the goal is more to enjoy the ride than to actually build up long-term strategy. That way cut-throat play style doesn’t mean anything, because everyone can takeyou down with a lucky roll.

For example for me and my wife, one of the games we lately really enjoy is 7 Wonders: Duel, because while it provides some strategic elements, the majority of it is tactical and driven by what cards are dealt and flipped and when that is happening. Which gave her chances on winning even when she wasn’t really good at it, and which up to this day gives me tons of ways to lose, even if I think I am good at it 😉 – it is an enjoyable quick game without much setup and with no downtime at all.

Another one we found to work nicely is 1775: Revolution, a game about the american revolution. Kinda like Risk, just done right 😉 – luck plays a big role, since both player order and battle results are decided by random elements. rules are simple to grasp and the game plays quickly for it’s scope (1-2 hours). Provides for lots of strategic planning that will instantly be undone by those dice – or come to frutition. Sure, if you look at it from the strategic angle, you notice how you can get a bit more control on results, but still, the best plans only survive until the first contact with the enemy.

Oh, and don’t throw new games on the table all the time. Try to find one she can get her hooks in, one she really enjoys and play it repeatedly. For is that one is Progress: Evolution of Technology, which we played around 130 times by now and still regularily play. It’s my wifes comfort zone with regards to board games, one she not only enjoys but where she really sees the strategy and the ways to win. I still probably win more than her, but she doesn’t mind, because she can see what she can try to do about it. Allthough I did make it a rule that we won’t anymore play two games of Progress after the other, there has to be one of the bigger games in between 😉

Maybe look for some 1-vs-all games where you can be the beastly overlord and the other players a coop group bound to take you down. If you are the big bad boy at the table, transfer that to the game and let the game take care of it 🙂

Actually one of the KS I am on – Days of Ire – will allow me right that, me playing a deep CDG while my opponents together kinda play a variant on Pandemic, where I am throwing out problems they have to tackle to stay alive and swing for the win.

Or play games with higher luck factor, where the goal is more to enjoy the ride than to actually build up long-term strategy. That way cut-throat play style doesn’t mean anything, because everyone can takeyou down with a lucky roll.

For example for me and my wife, one of the games we lately really enjoy is 7 Wonders: Duel, because while it provides some strategic elements, the majority of it is tactical and driven by what cards are dealt and flipped and when that is happening. Which gave her chances on winning even when she wasn’t really good at it, and which up to this day gives me tons of ways to lose, even if I think I am good at it 😉 – it is an enjoyable quick game without much setup and with no downtime at all.

Another one we found to work nicely is 1775: Revolution, a game about the american revolution. Kinda like Risk, just done right 😉 – luck plays a big role, since both player order and battle results are decided by random elements. rules are simple to grasp and the game plays quickly for it’s scope (1-2 hours). Provides for lots of strategic planning that will instantly be undone by those dice – or come to frutition. Sure, if you look at it from the strategic angle, you notice how you can get a bit more control on results, but still, the best plans only survive until the first contact with the enemy.

Oh, and don’t throw new games on the table all the time. Try to find one she can get her hooks in, one she really enjoys and play it repeatedly. For is that one is Progress: Evolution of Technology, which we played around 130 times by now and still regularily play. It’s my wifes comfort zone with regards to board games, one she not only enjoys but where she really sees the strategy and the ways to win. I still probably win more than her, but she doesn’t mind, because she can see what she can try to do about it. Allthough I did make it a rule that we won’t anymore play two games of Progress after the other, there has to be one of the bigger games in between 😉

I’m on the P500 for the Navajo Wars reprint. Hopefully one day it will be done.

I’m on the P500 for the Navajo Wars reprint. Hopefully one day it will be done.

Greenland is fantastic as solo game. A little bit fiddly, since you manage three cultures, but doable. It definitely provides very good game play even solo. The survival aspect is very well transported by the mechanisms and the play is just plain fun. Small box is a benefit, too, and doesn’t take a gigantic table to get it out. Rules are a little bit on the dense side, so might take a bit effort to learn, but definitely worth it. It does have the same roll-for-success structure as many war games have, you decide on your plans and then the dice decide on your success or failure, so it can be quite brutal from time to time if you roll badly. But well, you are trying to survive in greenland, so that’s only to be expected. Definitely a fun game.

Greenland is fantastic as solo game. A little bit fiddly, since you manage three cultures, but doable. It definitely provides very good game play even solo. The survival aspect is very well transported by the mechanisms and the play is just plain fun. Small box is a benefit, too, and doesn’t take a gigantic table to get it out. Rules are a little bit on the dense side, so might take a bit effort to learn, but definitely worth it. It does have the same roll-for-success structure as many war games have, you decide on your plans and then the dice decide on your success or failure, so it can be quite brutal from time to time if you roll badly. But well, you are trying to survive in greenland, so that’s only to be expected. Definitely a fun game.

The Gallerist is straight forward to play solo with keeping the “bot” at a minimum level of fiddlyness – essentially it is just a timer and denial machine. It is great for solo, but I don’t really know if it is great only for solo play – it might be that you run out of steam after a bunch of plays. Setup for The Gallerist is not too bad, but definitely on the larger side, so it might be worthwhile to keep that in mind – a game with limited solo replayability with higher setup might not be the best investment. If you think you ever will get it to the table multiplayer, though, go for it – it just looks great and it really is one of the better thematic euros. And it is brain-burny as hell.

Robinson Crusoe isn’t too fiddly, but has lots of little rules to pay attention to, so that might get irritating during play. But it is definitely one of the games that tells the best stories solitair. It is fantastic in that regard and provides great replayability solo. And it really marries mechanics and theme in a great way. But all those great things it does is only with one goal: to completely eradicate you the player from the game. It is helluva punishing, which can distract some people.

Hostage Negotiator (as suggested in another comment) indeed is travel friendly, but be warned that it has a “roll for success” structure that people outside wargaming often find irritating: you decide what to do and then roll dice to see if you succeed in doing what you planned. Can feel quite a bit random (because frankly, it is damn random), but tells great fast stories with minimal setup. A very good thematic filler, but you might throw it out the window if you expect more control over your game play.

I personally found astonishing amounts of fun in Castles of Burgundy: The Card Game when I played it. It is a table hog due to the layout of the cards when playing, but itself is travel friendly due to the fact that it is just a pile of mini cards. I found the solo mode quite interesting, while it kept the solo-mode overhead to a minimum (“opponent” is more on the abstract side as with The Gallerist). It is cheap, doesn’t take up much space when stowed away, setup is ok and play enjoyable. And plays up to 4. Can’t say much about replayability, though, as I didn’t replay it yet (which might say something in itself 😉 ).

Another game I enjoyed solo lately is Hoplomachus – in my case the Origins box. It gives you super sturdy components (neoprene mats, engraved dice, poker chips for your playing pieces) and super solid game play where you either play gladiators against your opponents gladiators or against dice-driven bots. Setup is super fast, play is quick, and the Origins solo trials each provide a fun “break this game” puzzle to solve (meaning that you get a bot fighting you where usually you can find a combination of gladiators to send into this trial to beat the bot in most cases). Replayability still is quite high due to the number of trials and the randomness of play – as soon as you find a trial where you feel it is the right combination of punishment, variability and win-chances, you can just play that over and over again without getting bored. Downside of this one: expensive. But definitely one I pull out quite a bit, because it really can be squeezed into a 30 minute slot including setup, 2 plays of the selected trial and breakdown. And trial selection gives you the choice from “solved this, just having a nice time beating up some dude on a map” to “no friggin idea how I am supposed to win this” brain-burners to “wild random thing to just see what comes up”. Definitely a favorite.

Ob-include due to my flair: don’t disregard LOTR:LCG, because even if you don’t go crazy like me and get everything, it can probably provide the most diverse and deep solo play you can find. And not only does it provide the play itself, it provides hours of fun mulling over your card combos to build decks for a quest to finally beat it. I deckbuild much more hours than I actually play, because I love theory-crafting decks. There is a reason I rate it a solid 10 😉

The Gallerist is straight forward to play solo with keeping the “bot” at a minimum level of fiddlyness – essentially it is just a timer and denial machine. It is great for solo, but I don’t really know if it is great only for solo play – it might be that you run out of steam after a bunch of plays. Setup for The Gallerist is not too bad, but definitely on the larger side, so it might be worthwhile to keep that in mind – a game with limited solo replayability with higher setup might not be the best investment. If you think you ever will get it to the table multiplayer, though, go for it – it just looks great and it really is one of the better thematic euros. And it is brain-burny as hell.

Robinson Crusoe isn’t too fiddly, but has lots of little rules to pay attention to, so that might get irritating during play. But it is definitely one of the games that tells the best stories solitair. It is fantastic in that regard and provides great replayability solo. And it really marries mechanics and theme in a great way. But all those great things it does is only with one goal: to completely eradicate you the player from the game. It is helluva punishing, which can distract some people.

Hostage Negotiator (as suggested in another comment) indeed is travel friendly, but be warned that it has a “roll for success” structure that people outside wargaming often find irritating: you decide what to do and then roll dice to see if you succeed in doing what you planned. Can feel quite a bit random (because frankly, it is damn random), but tells great fast stories with minimal setup. A very good thematic filler, but you might throw it out the window if you expect more control over your game play.

I personally found astonishing amounts of fun in Castles of Burgundy: The Card Game when I played it. It is a table hog due to the layout of the cards when playing, but itself is travel friendly due to the fact that it is just a pile of mini cards. I found the solo mode quite interesting, while it kept the solo-mode overhead to a minimum (“opponent” is more on the abstract side as with The Gallerist). It is cheap, doesn’t take up much space when stowed away, setup is ok and play enjoyable. And plays up to 4. Can’t say much about replayability, though, as I didn’t replay it yet (which might say something in itself 😉 ).

Another game I enjoyed solo lately is Hoplomachus – in my case the Origins box. It gives you super sturdy components (neoprene mats, engraved dice, poker chips for your playing pieces) and super solid game play where you either play gladiators against your opponents gladiators or against dice-driven bots. Setup is super fast, play is quick, and the Origins solo trials each provide a fun “break this game” puzzle to solve (meaning that you get a bot fighting you where usually you can find a combination of gladiators to send into this trial to beat the bot in most cases). Replayability still is quite high due to the number of trials and the randomness of play – as soon as you find a trial where you feel it is the right combination of punishment, variability and win-chances, you can just play that over and over again without getting bored. Downside of this one: expensive. But definitely one I pull out quite a bit, because it really can be squeezed into a 30 minute slot including setup, 2 plays of the selected trial and breakdown. And trial selection gives you the choice from “solved this, just having a nice time beating up some dude on a map” to “no friggin idea how I am supposed to win this” brain-burners to “wild random thing to just see what comes up”. Definitely a favorite.

Ob-include due to my flair: don’t disregard LOTR:LCG, because even if you don’t go crazy like me and get everything, it can probably provide the most diverse and deep solo play you can find. And not only does it provide the play itself, it provides hours of fun mulling over your card combos to build decks for a quest to finally beat it. I deckbuild much more hours than I actually play, because I love theory-crafting decks. There is a reason I rate it a solid 10 😉

States of Siege have a very wide range of complexity. From the much simpler stuff like Soviet Dawn to the heavier stuff like Cruel Necessity to the completely ridiculous expanded stuff like Dawn of the Zeds. It is a great system for solo wargaming, since it is designed explicitely for solo and the fiddlyness is kept in check with these games most of the time (Zeds can get a bit more involved with both setup and in-play fiddlyness, but it provides a tremendous story in return).

The Field Commander series is targeted again at solo play and has moderate fiddlyness during play (well, the stacks of counters can get absurd in some of those games – Fleet Commander Nimitz for example), but due to the gigantic number of different counters the setup can be a bit of a pain (Field Commander Napoleon for example).

COIN are designed for 4 players with some slight variations how 2 players are handled (Liberty or Death allows faction-play with two, which means you can solo two coop factions against two bot factions). Thing is, solo play is done by providing bots for each player you don’t play yourself. Which can add a ton of stuff to keep track of during play, so it is quite involved. In return you get a fantastic game with tons of options, but that stuff is heavy. And the bots don’t make it easier.

Never looked at Conflict of Heroes and never played one of the D-Day games, but CoH’s solo option is an extra expansion you need to buy and it brings it’s own scenarios, so keep that in mind. And while the D-Day stuff is designed for solo play, from what I read only Omaha Beach is actually winable on a halfway sane scale, while Tarawa and Peleliu both are so punishing that you probably have to find your enjoyment in the story and not the winning, because the latter doesn’t seem to happen that often. And only the Peleliu title is in print currently.

If you look for introductory stuff, probably look at the State of Siege games, first, as they provide a wide thematic selection and a wide complexety range. If you go for COIN, probably take Cuba Libre or Fallen Sky (both readily available at the moment) as a starting title. Or maybe wait for Colonial Twilight, as that is the first 2-player COIN title and so reduces fiddlyness of solo play big time, you only have to handle your guys and one bot.

You could look into the leader series of DVG, too – Thunderbolt Apache Leader or Phantom Leader for example. Designed for explicit solo play, too, and usually the leader stuff (like the field commander stuff) is more targeted towards introductory/casual wargaming.

Oh, and please notice that the scale of your selection of games is all over the place – CoH is tactical, while the field commander stuff is strategic and COIN more operative. Another aspect is that the COIN games are much more politic than the others in that you are not running around and fight but have to gain the support of people.

So tl;dr: you probably should give more info, stuff like what scale you would like, what’s the main thing you look for and maybe how much randomness you are willing to accept before we can give more concrete suggestions 😉

States of Siege have a very wide range of complexity. From the much simpler stuff like Soviet Dawn to the heavier stuff like Cruel Necessity to the completely ridiculous expanded stuff like Dawn of the Zeds. It is a great system for solo wargaming, since it is designed explicitely for solo and the fiddlyness is kept in check with these games most of the time (Zeds can get a bit more involved with both setup and in-play fiddlyness, but it provides a tremendous story in return).

The Field Commander series is targeted again at solo play and has moderate fiddlyness during play (well, the stacks of counters can get absurd in some of those games – Fleet Commander Nimitz for example), but due to the gigantic number of different counters the setup can be a bit of a pain (Field Commander Napoleon for example).

COIN are designed for 4 players with some slight variations how 2 players are handled (Liberty or Death allows faction-play with two, which means you can solo two coop factions against two bot factions). Thing is, solo play is done by providing bots for each player you don’t play yourself. Which can add a ton of stuff to keep track of during play, so it is quite involved. In return you get a fantastic game with tons of options, but that stuff is heavy. And the bots don’t make it easier.

Never looked at Conflict of Heroes and never played one of the D-Day games, but CoH’s solo option is an extra expansion you need to buy and it brings it’s own scenarios, so keep that in mind. And while the D-Day stuff is designed for solo play, from what I read only Omaha Beach is actually winable on a halfway sane scale, while Tarawa and Peleliu both are so punishing that you probably have to find your enjoyment in the story and not the winning, because the latter doesn’t seem to happen that often. And only the Peleliu title is in print currently.

If you look for introductory stuff, probably look at the State of Siege games, first, as they provide a wide thematic selection and a wide complexety range. If you go for COIN, probably take Cuba Libre or Fallen Sky (both readily available at the moment) as a starting title. Or maybe wait for Colonial Twilight, as that is the first 2-player COIN title and so reduces fiddlyness of solo play big time, you only have to handle your guys and one bot.

You could look into the leader series of DVG, too – Thunderbolt Apache Leader or Phantom Leader for example. Designed for explicit solo play, too, and usually the leader stuff (like the field commander stuff) is more targeted towards introductory/casual wargaming.

Oh, and please notice that the scale of your selection of games is all over the place – CoH is tactical, while the field commander stuff is strategic and COIN more operative. Another aspect is that the COIN games are much more politic than the others in that you are not running around and fight but have to gain the support of people.

So tl;dr: you probably should give more info, stuff like what scale you would like, what’s the main thing you look for and maybe how much randomness you are willing to accept before we can give more concrete suggestions 😉

I’d say COIN is a bit heavier due to it’s added complexety of the area-majority part. The card selection is on par with CDGs, complexety-wise, the recurring 10-years-event is on par with propaganda/winter events in COIN, but the economy activities on the map are simpler as the movements on the map in COIN (but are on par with the area control mechanics in many CDGs like 1989 or Twilight Struggle). WsdV has a few quirks with regard to special areas (mostly west berlin), but you find lots of special casing in COIN games and CDGs, too – usually quite a few more, which adds to their complexity.

I think Cuba Libre (as the “least complex” COIN) is still a bit heavier than WsdV, but not too much, so could be a good stepup if you want to go into that direction. To put my theory to a test, I would first have to create german cards für Cuba Libre, as my wife doesn’t speak english and so CL isn’t an option for us.

Another option you could go for would be Polis, as that is in the same complexety area as WsdV, ditching some complexety with the event cards (only one per round which just tilts rules a little) but adds the troup movement and area majority aspect you will later see in COIN games. So maybe try to go from WsdV to Polis and then go into your first COIN game.