I prefer live opponents, and typically have multiple games in play (most often, PBeM). That said, I don't get nearly enough FtF time and always enjoy trying out scenarios solo just to get a sense of the design. Solo play can be surprisingly fun, and a nice way to try out strategy or tactics. I never find it uninteresting.
When it first appeared, I enjoyed SASL, though I haven't returned to it in at least 20 years (I keep planning to...). Aside from loneliness, any solo play has two main problems: first, preserving the fog of war and, second, not allowing yourself to favor one side over the other. SASL eliminates the second problem, and largely solves/makes a strength of the first, but only at the expense of having to manually work the complex gears of its opponent AI.
I've also chosen to solo play "regular" scenarios using a variety of home-made systems, often ad hoc and convoluted, but always focused on preserving the fog of war. Rarely did I feel like I wasn't manipulating the results to the advantage of one side or the other. Only those scenarios with little HIP and concealment worked especially well.
But now I find that I very much enjoy a hyper-streamlined method that can be adjusted as seems appropriate for each scenario. It doesn't attempt to manage my psychology (simply accepting my whims), and really doesn't solve either of the above "problems.” But I am satisfied that it comes about as close to a real ASL experience as any solo system will give you (other than a well-designed, computerized AI). More importantly, it adds almost no additional time to a game. With luck this won't sound too complicated upon description (such is the nature of words!). It isn't complicated at all (quite primitive, really!).
In short, I've concluded that it is best to just play, accepting that your two sides have a near-total knowledge of the enemy (physically and mentally). Indeed, even in a FtF game, it usually doesn't take too long before you Know or at least intuit most of your enemy's disposition. So all I really attempt to account for in solo play are the things that the opposing sides can't ever be completely certain of: what is underneath a stack that has been concealed for as long as that side has seen it, and the placement of HIP units/fortifications.
As quickly as I can describe the method, I can select from the majority of scenarios, setting up each side exactly as if I was playing a real-life, human opponent. HIP units are left offboard, but with an equal number of dummy counters placed in a legal hex/Location for that side (note ID#). I usually mark HIP units/forts with some other nationality's concealment counter. HIP minefields/fortifications work the same way as HIP, with dummy minefield counters or yet another country’s ?-counters to represent them (along with the units inside of a pillbox). Afterwards, all initially concealed units/dummies are turned upside down. Units that merely "grow" concealment at set up (but only after their imaginary opponent would have seen the top counter) remain right-side up.
During play, real units underneath concealment/HIP counters may fire and become revealed as usual. They can never again grow an upside-down concealment counter. As usual, sides may fire at HIP counters or search out an HIP counter in order to reveal them. Hexes without an HIP counter can also be searched/fired at, if only to deny them to the opponent's HIP counters later (see below).
From there I use a quick system to allow some surprise. Each side with any dummies or HIP units/forts makes a DR at the beginning of each player turn. The colored die is the Quantity die (Q) while the white die is the Probability die (P). A side’s Q# represents the number of changes which that side can make at ANY point during the turn to any upside-down, concealed counters or to HIP units/fortifications (i.e. to any of those counters that yet to be Known to the other side). A side’s P# represents the number with a single die that must be rolled less than in order for the change to be successful. So Q5 and P2 means that the player, at any five moments during the turn, may make an attempt to adjust concealed/HIP counters, but only if he makes a dr less than 2. Successful or not, a new P dr is made which becomes the P# for that side’s next attempt (if any "Q" remain). The only modifier allowed is that a player may always subtract from any remaining Q in order to increase his current P (though the P# can never exceed 6). So if faced with a strongly desired change, the player with Q5 and P2 can adjust the current P# to 6, but at the cost of all of his remaining Q... one Q to make the attempt and the other 4 to increase the P# from 2 to 6.
For record keeping, I usually put a 1/2” die showing the current P# on the VP track in the space representing the current Q#.
As for allowable adjustments, these are simple. When the P-dr is less than the current P#, the attempt is successful and the player may swap any number of counters (units or dummies) that are currently beneath one upside-down Concealment counter with the same number of counters from beneath another upside-down concealed stack. This way, what remains on the mapboard remains in a disposition that was always plausible given the initial set up (upside-down concealment counters are those that have NEVER been Known by the opponent). As for HIP units - fortifications included - a successful P# dr would allow the dummy counter that represents an HIP to be repositioned into any other legal hex. Now I know this sounds awfully liberal, but as long as you make note of where the opponent has moved, and take into account - to the best of your ability - what hexes were ever in his LOS (as required for fortifications), I never find myself re-positioning a fort, minefield or Gun into a place that would be too unlikely in a real game. Typically, the side with HIP units becomes increasingly pressured to make a “final decision“ or live with limited options, as the enemy moves about. Try to play within the limits of your own credulity and understanding of the “game-so-far.” If you swap counters, don’t swap a leader for an HMG if that stack has already moved 6MFs in one MPh! Again, an attempt to adjust can be made at ANY time. The only exception is once a shot has been declared - at that point, you must attempt any adjustments BEFORE the dice start rolling.
Beyond that, I will sometimes allow one side a two-die, Q# DR when the scenario is large and the number of concealed/dummies/HIP units seems to demand it. Another option is to grant a side with plentiful HIP/dummies an appropriate number of P# modifiers "in storage" that can be gradually drawn from as the scenario proceeds. Similar changes can be made to account for when one side should have more ?/HIP potential than the other (though many scenarios exist where only one side gets any such potential at all).
My method likely precludes many large scenarios, and can get clunky when there’s a lot of things HIP. The idea, in the end, isn't really to simulate a FtF opponent, but rather just a game-play situation which allows you to experience a scenario along with some of the dangers/uncertainty that you might deal with if you actually played it FtF. Its strength is that it allows you always to base decisions upon a real understanding of the current situation while maintaining a realistic uncertainty where your knowledge wouldn't be perfect. Either side may still attempt to spring that surprise, yet both sides remain sure of what potential dangers still exist. You must still balance caution with the usual risk/reward calculations. And there’s no guarantee that an expected/feared/planned trap will snap shut!
I know none of this is brilliant, and can all be easily nitpicked, but it is very simple and works well for a large percentage of scenarios. I'd be interested for someone else’s thoughts, especially after they give it a try!
.
