Solo wargame: Historical or Fictional?

I would vote #2. It gives you the historical framework to hook everything to, but also gives you creative freedom to take the story where you want it ... best of both worlds, imo. ;-)

-Bryk

I actually find all three of these options fascinating, in their own way. I think if I were doing something like this, I would probably go for #3.

While there is definitly an allure to recreating historical events and seeing how you stack up against history, and I am really a sucker for "side stories" that occur alongside other well known events, I would rather go ahead and create a whole new scenario. It seems less restrictive than trying to fit my own ideas into history, and maintain that kind of continuity.

Plus, when it comes to games like this, I find science fiction a lot more interesting than science fact.

But then, that's just me.

Well, you could have it include elements of both #1 and #2, if you've got multiple engagements involved with each scenario. Consider my standard "multiple scenario" chart:

Now, you could just decide that the "true" path (the one taken historically) is demonstrated by scenarios 1, 2, 5, and 8. The player could play through tme all, and not only see how well they would do from any given point in the evolution of the conflict, but see if they could do better than their historical counterparts. This would provide an interesting means to integrate history while creating a lot of replayability.

The only sticking point with this is that you have to commit to designing multiple scenarios. But that's what we live for, right? (Oh, and I also usually have rules that allow for an additional shift right or left for especially good or bad results in any given scenario.)