I was thinking of purchasing BattleLore, but I like to play war games solitaire as well as with others. By playing a war game solitaire on occasion, I get a good grasp of the game's mechanincs, tactics, strategy, etc. How conducive is BattleLore to playing solitaire? Also, I've heard it is light on strategy and that chance (dice rolls) have a lot to do with victory or defeat. How accurate is this? For those of you who have played Tide of Iron, how does BattleLore compare to Tide of Iron in terms of strategy and tactics?

It plays well solitaire. I do it often. As far as the chance it does mostly relly on chance.

Interceptor said:

Before disagreeing with HonorONEFilms, I will agree: BattleLore works well playing solitaire, especially for gaining a grasp of the mechanics and tactics. Just keep in mind that it will play differently, as not knowing what the opponent has in store has a noticeable impact on the game. Bluffing, both tactically and verbally , has its place in BL. However, letting the cards and dice have their say in the battle that will play out in a solitaire game is still very enjoyable.

Interceptor said:

Being well aware that different people have different concepts in mind when talking about strategy and tactics, I would say that the pre-set adventures are light on strategy, but heavy on tactical decision making (which, to me, is the meat of the game and what makes it fun and surprising). Call to Arms and the construction of the War Council bring strategic elements to the game, and I suspect that when (if?) campaign-style rules are brought in and the rpg elements which Heroes hints at, even more of a strategic bend to the game will develop.

There will be moments in the game where the dice swing the balance from one side to the other, but on the whole, the player who engages in better tactical plays will prevail. Ultimately the games come down to rolling more dice that hit at greater rates than the opponent. Figuring out how to do that with the command and lore cards one is presented with is the challenge. The more familiar one is with the game, the better one will play. It is certainly a far cry from being determined by dumb luck.

Agreed. A large part of the game is strategy but when it comes down to the fighting the better dice will win out(but then that's about the same with all games insn't it.)

I have had the base game since it first came out and have only played it solitaire, well OK, with the cats. I only recently added Hundred Years and Scottish Wars expansions.

I found it to be an excellent solitaire game when I worked my way through the basic scenarios, say #1-5. I set the board; deal out the command cards, organize them left, center, right, special; and just play from there. For each move I make what appears to be the best move at the time without looking ahead. I might remind myself that this side has a Mounted Charge Card or a Blue Banners card, so sooner or later it will come in handy. It works because, as others have said, there are dice rolls involved, many dice rolls. Even if you deliberately/accidentally favored one side, the dice could well role poorly and that side will still falter. The vagaries of die roles help to keep you honest. This is an excellent way of learning to play the game, helping you to learn the rules, [which can be a bit overwhelming at first], and prepare to play with others. When you do play with others, no matter how superior your position might seem, or theirs, you will remember the times when your solo games turned on surprise success or failure due to the dice.

This works well up to and with a simple War Council. I have used the medieval lore rules, as found in Hundred Years War and the Scottish Wars expansions with good success.

If becomes difficult, but not impossible, to manage full War Councils. Doing so will likely cause a headache and blurry visions but these can be tempered by having Jack Daniels on you side when you try this more complicated form of the game. Still using these scenarios solo will help you master the full game and make it more enjoyable when you venture out with friends or strangers.

Hope this helps,

Just my two sense

G

It plays fine Solo.

As to chance it's The Command & Colors,so your at the mercy of the cards drawn.

I like the random nature of the cards as they keep things interesting as your best laid

plans may be screwed up & force you to improvise.But if you don't like "Chance"

in a game you won't like BL.

OD

As said above there is a lot of strategy but it comes down to providence.

HonorforONEFilms said:

You may mean the very same sentiment as I by the above, but I would turn that phrase like so: Providence has a great influence, but it comes down to decision making.

Yes and no. For example, I played againcourt as the English once. I drove the french knights all the way across the board with flag after flag. He brought his infantry up and I utterly buchered them scoring so many hits it was shoking. Now say that providence determind that I should roll no flags with my archers. I would have been slaughtered. You can have to best strategy in the world and still get buchered if the dice don't roll in your favor. Stategy is the main part of the game but if provedence is against you then your whoped no matter what you do. I had a game like what I described where I was playing an inexperianced gereal, my troops were stronger, on mountains, bold, and had support and even a calvalry charge. I lost five to one. Yup. That's the way it works. Gereraly speaking the better general will win. But with providence against you and bad cards you wont get far.

I have had the base game since it first came out and have only played it solitaire, well OK, with the cats. I only recently added Hundred Years and Scottish Wars expansions.

I found it to be an excellent solitaire game when I worked my way through the basic scenarios, say #1-5. I set the board; deal out the command cards, organize them left, center, right, special; and just play from there. For each move I make what appears to be the best move at the time without looking ahead. I might remind myself that this side has a Mounted Charge Card or a Blue Banners card, so sooner or later it will come in handy. It works because, as others have said, there are dice rolls involved, many dice rolls. Even if you deliberately/accidentally favored one side, the dice could well role poorly and that side will still falter. The vagaries of die roles help to keep you honest. This is an excellent way of learning to play the game, helping you to learn the rules, [which can be a bit overwhelming at first], and prepare to play with others. When you do play with others, no matter how superior your position might seem, or theirs, you will remember the times when your solo games turned on surprise success or failure due to the dice.

This works well up to and with a simple War Council. I have used the medieval lore rules, as found in Hundred Years War and the Scottish Wars expansions with good success.

If becomes difficult, but not impossible, to manage full War Councils. Doing so will likely cause a headache and blurry visions but these can be tempered by having Jack Daniels on you side when you try this more complicated form of the game. Still using these scenarios solo will help you master the full game and make it more enjoyable when you venture out with friends or strangers.

Hope this helps,

Just my two sense

G

This forum sure seems to have a problem with doing that. In fact it would be very funny if you couldn't see this post. Except that you couldn't see it so it wouldn't be funny. Well, I'd laugh.

Over on the DOW site and BGG solitaire play got raised a few times, I kept more than half an eye on it. As the stuff on DOW now has a shelf life I thought I'd bring over what looked like a good set of rules for solo play (non of these are mine but have been brought together from lots of contributers over there into what makes a bit more joined together as lots of thoughts on different parts were in lots of postings)

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/1807458#1807458 (this is a link to one of the threads on BGG)

This seems to be a recurrent topic so I though I'd post up on my findings. I got the game a week ago and have played probably five or six battles so far. Great game so far; I can only imagine that it's even better with other people.

As everyone else has noticed, it's not that hard to do the historical scenarios solo. Here's how I do it:

1) Pick a "player" side to play normally. In all respects the game is played as written in the rules: Same command draws, etc.

2) Lore Council creation (this came from BGG but I really like it)

Roll dice equal to lore council level (optionally roll one less with the unrolled level going into commander), If you roll too many of one kind just reroll those dice.

Each colour on the dice corresponds to a Lore council member:

blue helm = magician,
red helm = warrior,
green helm = rogue,
purple lore = priest,
yellow shield/sword = commander
black flag = monster.

For example rolling 5 dice two blue helms, one red helm, one yellow shield/sword, and one black flags would equal 2nd level magician, 1st level warrior, 2nd level commander (1 level automatic) and one creature

Chris

3) Opposing side rules (Command).

- Every turn the opposing "automated" forces draw four command cards.
- The two best cards are chosen as options and the poorer two cards are discarded.
- One of the two "best" cards is randomly selected and played. The scout card is just played but he scout ability isn't valid for the automated side.
- In the event that the best tactical option for the automated player is unclear, the decision is made by throwing dice
(If you find it difficult to beat the opponent then use this option:

Draw four cards, put the two "best" in one pile, put the two "worst" in another pile. Randomly select one from each pile. This turn the automated player plays the best card - the next turn he plays the lesser quality card - the next turn he refreshes with 4 cards again.)

4) Opposing side rules (Lore).
- Draw four Lore Cards.
- Discard the worst one.
- Automated side (AS) may cast one lore card if wanted.

- Automated side may cast interrupts in players turn
- All AS lore cards are discarded before AS draws new Lore cards.
- If the automated side is low on lore (<4), it draws two at the end of the turn, otherwise one

In this game you've got dice and two different types of cards. What this means is that the luck comes in many small packages, and therefore it has a good chance to even itself out.

There will be games when you lose because of luck (your bad luck or the other guy's good luck), but I believe that generally the better tactician will win the game.

I don't find the game to have anything that I would consider "strategy", but there are lots of tactical decisions to be made.

tkostek said:

I'll be the first to admit I don't have a solid grasp on the difference between tactics and strategy in board games, but I think I have a clue. Obviously you have a lot of tactics as you resolve each command/lore card that you play and the luck is demonstrated in the dice results. There are tactical decisions on which unit to attack with which unit and in what order.

However, I have to disagree with you that there is no strategy in the game. How and when you play the cards that you have in your hand should be your strategical focus. It is your grand plan on how to isolate and win the set amount of victory banners. It also means not exposing a flank or overplaying a section that you can no longer to support it. It might even be manipultaing your opponent's Lore pool so he can't counter your magical strike.

I don't mean this offensively, but when people say this game has no strategy than they really don't understand the game. And as such, they usually just see it as a random luck fest and curse the fact they have to use command cards to activate units at all.

I like the suggestions Elberon posted for solitaire play. If you can consistently play well against what are effectively the best cards for your opponent to play against you at any given time, then I think you've got a good grasp of game and would do well against a real opponent.

Yes, there is the luck of the die rolls and card draws, but you need that to make the game replayable. I think it does well enough with those game mechanics to those unpredictable elements that can influence a battle.

As for the difference between tactics and strategy, the difference lies in the scope. Tactics is how you use the groups of units within a section; strategy is how you coordinate between the sections and use your Lore cards to deny your enemy the ability to coordinate. It's just a small example, but you get the idea.

ColtsFan76 said:

I tend to shy away from semantic arguments as well - not too concerned about the proper use of "tactical" vs "strategic" (probably because I , myself, combine the words Bush-like into some concept of "strategery" ). However, I am atune to when the discussion is used to say that C&C games are ruled by random chance as opposed to planning and resource management. Chance influences the course the game will take, but how the players create those opportunities is what decides the game. The player who more consistently sets up opportunities to succeed is the one that will do so most everytime. There is a learning curve to setting up those opportunities and knowing the proper response to situations presented upon the board. Dice flattery is a component though

Alright, now the semantic part - I would say an example of strategies vs. tactics in this game would be "I will target green units in close combat and red units by range as often as possible" (strategy) vs. "this turn I shall use Attack Right in order to engage the enemy rather than BattleLore, and further more, I will pull back and fire away rather than enter into close combat this turn" (tactics). So, kinda what Lord Orion was saying, but I think a little different, but I also don't think it matters much

Well I do believe there is some strategy involved. But I have seen way too many times that people play the good cards (i.e. the 2/2/2 card) way too early when it would do better later on. Since if you can play a 1 order card that would get 1 unit into battle the same as a 2/2/2 card, why use the more powerful card?

But also at the same token, there are times when the 2/2/2 card to basically get one unit to attack might be the best thing to do too.

Similiarly if all your mounted units are behind your lines, playing a mounted charge card isn't that useful (i.e. not getting the extra dice to attack with them). Sure you get to move them but other than that, you are wasting a pretty good card to move units around.

The key to my post is that there are times when a little thought goes quite a way to maybe winning the game. Sometimes planning how to use the cards you have will go a long way to turning a game that you will lose to a win. Since the people who have played this game a lot, know that they can sometimes maybe turn a 1 medal vs opponents 4 medals (with 6 to win) to maybe a win. I have seen it happen both for and against. Same can be said for M44 as well (since it based on the same similiar system minus the lore of course).

Cab

Caboose said:

To set up for the next turn

The real question, however, is: Is that a tactical decision, or a strategic one? or both?