This is a remarkably fun and interesting game to play solo. Just play the heroic game with four roles. Keep all the players' hands face up and play the game out as best you can. It's quite hard to win.

Good to know. I'm surprised there's no mention of solo play in the rules.

And someone mentioned that the 2-player game (per the rules) was weak but it seems entirely reasonable to play the 4-player game with 2 players taking 2 roles each.

This game doesn't really need extra solo rules as you're playing against the board and the game system anyway. I played two solo games while waiting for my kids to come and play with me. I lost both; it was a lot of fun but also very hard as the outbreaks can come fast and furious towards the end.

I didn't say anything about extra rules. Typically if a game can be played solo there will be a mention of that fact in the rules.

RIGHT! I just checked the BGG listing for the game and it states 2 - 4 players. It is INDEED good to know that solo play is a viable option.

The rules do mention you may choose to play with cards open. If that's the case, given the fact that this is a coop game, it seemed obvious to me that you could easily play a solo game using 2 pawns. I tested it out so that I could teach my wife, and it played very well. I'd prefer using 2 pawns vs. 4 pawns just because there are fewer hands to track.

It's still a game with 2, 3 or 4 players, only you are all of them.

When I taught the game to my wife, until she understood the game, I was basically playing a solitaire game. However, she seemed to pick the game up quickly, and within a few turns, she was playing solitaire! Oh how the tide turned.

I really think this is a fun solitaire game as long as the person uses a few researchers.

Really? What was the reason?

That sounds like a Euphemism for "#*$#$ lost again." I'm 0-6, and only once or twice did I ever think "He, I might actually win this."

I think I need a step between Normal and Heroic...

Perhaps the reason they don't list the game as a solitaire game for 1 player is because it's really a solitaire game for any number of players.

This is a problem that plagues all the cooperative games on the market. To maximize the chances of winning it really is best to just follow 1 course of action. In theory, the group will discuss and come to consensus on the "best" course of action, but anyone can compose a reasonable course of action. These games often boil down to the 'smartest' or 'loudest' or 'most stubborn' player outlining a course of action they propose is best... i.e. "you do this, then you do that, then I'll do this, and we'll cure yellow!"

- Seth

I played this for the first time on Saturday and felt that the game avoided this common co-op problem. The asymmetric roles, number of tasks that needed accomplishing, and influence of the cards prevented there being a single best course of action apparent at any given time. It seemed like there were always a number of viable possibilities to choose from and we were always talking through them from our own perspectives and often ended up with, "Well, what do we want to do?" even after the discussion.

I am really looking forward to playing it again, both in a group and solo.

Have you tried 5 decks with only 4 epidemics? At least you'll have a period of peace before another epidemic breaks out. Just a thought.

Possibly because we are still new to the game, or because the game has a degree of unpredictability, we have not encountered a game where one person dominated the game. We all made mistakes equally...

Jim

When I play solo with multiple roles, I use the unused pawn to mark which role is currently being played. It really helps, as I get so into the game that I can't remember who is currently "on deck". Now, if I could only remember to move the pawn when the current role's turn is over...