Although I love the theme and game, TtAges is a bit on the long side for the Friday night games evenings at our FLGS, so doesn't get much table time. We have played a few 3-player sessions, but this will then be the entire evening. It works best to arrange these games in advance. So I thought it would be good to try out a solo version of play instead. Unfortunately, there didn't appear to be a good, easy or official solo rule version out? Wiltgren's Solo variant (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/294904) seemed a bit too complex and confusing, but on re-reading, was probably the basic inspiration for my eventual rules. That said, it also appeared incomplete. I also decided that I wasn't interested in simulating a two-player game, as per Lafe's solo variant (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/299765).

A few weeks and about 8 solo games later (with various tweaks between games), I had something workable, and fairly straightforward once you had played a few turns. However, the end result was too long to just post as an article, so I uploaded it as a PDF [blatent plug]: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/33098 [/blatent plug], i.e. something you can easily print off and use as a reference while playing.

Please let me know what you think?

My thoughts so far:
1. This variant has helped me develop/improve my own military play in TtA games, which was previously poor. It hurts to be low down on strength and be subjected to aggressions - but at least here you can blame the barbarians, and try do better next time. (One minor benefit is that no-one's feelings are hurt in the process, unlike in regular games!)
2. This version of the solo game does not really allow a flexible game development, the way a real game has everyone responding to cards taken and actions of other players. So it's not the real thing. However, the Card Row mechanism does tend to mess up your plans in a way that is very similar to what other players do (to you) in regular games, so the solo game can still feel like a good simulation.
3. One strategy for success is to try take as many colonies as you can, to deny them (and their future points) to the barbarians. This is much less important in the regular game, although can still be quite helpful.

Overall, my biggest surprise was the apparent lack of interest and activity in the solo play area (here on the Geek). After all, those other articles are months old..? As mentioned by another poster, it should have been easy to come up with a solo version. Or is it just that there are not that many people actually interested in playing TtAges (as the initial enthusiasm led us to believe)?

I don't even know what the "solo play area" is. But I'm not so surprised that there's not a lot of interest in solo variants. That doesn't seem to say much at all about the overall interest in the game itself.

Perhaps I should have written "solo play concept"... but you're right, I'm sure most other BGGeeks expect to be able to play games with others. So solo game players are likely in the minority.

These look good, David; I'm going to try them out. But I don't believe in going for high score, even in a solo game. I prefer a win/loss setup. You give me that, but it's only dependent on Strength, not Culture points. I could ignore Culture and still win the game. But that's easily handled. You say to aim for 160 Culture points; I say the player needs to exceed the strength of all three barbarians AND score 160 points to win. Sound reasonable?

The lack of solo rules discussion may be because TtA is fairly easy to play solo against yourself.

I thought about this, but decided against requiring a specific points target to "win". The final culture point total is too randomly dependent on what and how many Age III event cards you draw and seed. That said, the higher your end-game strength, the more points you can score from barbarian-held events. Again, military strength is the key requirement in this variant. However, I do think it useful to have a specific culture point "par" level, to gauge whether you are doing well or just barely making it. The level might need adjusting over time (i.e. with more experience/testing), if I find that it is possible to consistently reach a specific culture total AND defeat the barbs. Your input is welcome here!

True, to a degree... [I'm assuming you mean playing both sides of a 2-player game]. But you need a certain level of schizophrenia to do it well, and which side do you root for?

Take 'em out! Seriously, almost all of these only benefit the human player, so if we're just talking about a pointless luck factor, either take them out of the game or consider them to be blank cards that earn the human player 3 VPs if he seeds them (but which do nothing if they're drawn). An alternative would be to start the game with some of them face up (like in the Advanced Game) and use this to generate different scenarios (each with its own VP requirement to win).

Thank you very much for these. I for one have been waiting for playable solitaire rules for this game. (No offense to Wiltgren: my laziness is what prevented me to try his.)

Once I try them out I'll let you know what I think.

David, I think there's something missing in your description of your solo variant. Point 7 reads "End of Ages I, II and III: In addition to retiring leaders, unfinished wonders and your own civil and military cards from the prior age (Age A if ending Age I, Age I if ending Age II, and Age II if ending Age III), you also remove"

Remove what?

Oops! You remove expired military cards that any barbarian tribes may be holding - unused aggressions/wars or Defence/colonization cards. You also still remove two tokens from your yellow population bank as usual.

Thanks for spotting that Larry, I'll get an updated version uploaded this weekend.

I'm assuming, starting with turn three, the Barbarians' turns take place after the player's. Correct?

No. The Barbarians' turn(s) takes place in between the Card Row phase of turn three, and the rest of the player's turn 3 (political action, etc.).

I guess I should have gotten that from the order you put the explanations in the rules, but I guess I wanted it to be the other way.