Frostgrave has rules for neutral/ai monsters.

You could run that, it'd play more like a squad based D&D than a wargame though.

you could also just "script" the AI side of the wargame, with semi-random movement.

Like knights and knaves (free rules at http://www.hisentco.com/) has random troop reactions for being out of command range.

So you could have a huge army against the co-op team and just use the random decisions with some simple overarching commands from the enemy side (like hold bridge, attack gate, etc)

>>43560869
I'll check out those free rules you've linked, thanks man

Now that I think of it, what if the 'evil' player, or whatever the hell faction he's controlling could advance too? Maybe treat it more akin to an RPG than a wargame, so both teams have to create a story together, therefore the "GM" has infinite resources at his disposal, but has to create challenges for the players, who command a few troops each, and a hero who gets advancement and all. The GM could command a few heroes as well, but always in fewer numbers than the players, and get advancements for them too.

The villains could be recurring characters that get stronger along the player's heroes, and there could be other non-recurring enemies which are killed off to win the scenarios, protect the treasures, or whatever

>>43560470
There's a whole bunch of examples with historical games and dungeon crawlers, but the one that comes to mind for me most prominently is how Force on Force used multiple players against the GM to run Rhodesian Light Infantry vs whatever acronym of the week the insurgents were being without having to really fudge the troop quality disparity (which is gigantic to the point that the IRL casualty ratio defies belief over and over).

But programmed scenarios are an old staple of solo gaming and historical mismatches.

>>43561098
Almost sounds like you can do that with any wargame, just have a GM creating scenarios for players who control a squad of soldiers.

Sounds pretty fun honestly.

>>43561121

>Rhodesia's army during the 1970s was one of the best trained in the world, going up against a very poorly trained but well-equipped insurgent force. The security forces in Rhodesia maintained an overall kill ratio of about eight-to-one in their favour throughout the guerrilla war. And the highly trained Rhodesian Light Infantry achieved kill ratios ranging from 35-to-one to 50-to-one. ... The Rhodesians achieved this in an environment where they did not have air and artillery support, nor did they have a significant advantage over their Soviet-supported opponents. The only thing they had going for them was their superior training, and the advantage this gave them added up to nothing less than total tactical superiority.

Didn't even know about them before looking them up. That's huge.

Yeah, I'd love something like this, a GM controlling a little bit more than the players, but still a very deadly game. The players shouldn't steamroll, death should be a possibility, and with consequences.

I always considered more oriented to fantasy though

>>43561148
True, but the idea would be to have different mechanics that would emphasize this coop campaign feel. Maybe the players share resource management?

Maybe they come from different factions but have a joint base of operations they can upgrade and they need to decide what to do. I don't know, just brainstorming

>>43561309
>Maybe the players share resource management
The party has a pool of points that they decide how to allocate among themselves? That could work. Then with each progressive scenario that pool get increased or their 'hero' unit (assuming they have one) gets better progressively.

>>43561360
That's cool. Maybe there's different classes of heroes or whatever, that get stronger with other types, even really different hones, and some enemies must be taken on by at least two heroes at the same time, making teamwork invaluable.

Players could each be in charge of a different part of their encampment. Supplies, training, defense, scouting & exploring, and allocate a budget to each of these things.

>>43561386
>classes of heroes or whatever
You could use different statlines from the Wargame you're pulling from. Like a Devestator Marine as an example or Assault Marine.

You might want to look into Kill-Team in 40k. Might be a good starting point for you.

>>43561555
Checking it out now.

The problem is I don't want it to be too much of an RPG with players controlling just 1 or 2 miniatures. But having too many of them at the same time would slow down the play a lot I guess

>>43562231
A lot of two hour wargames stuff has 'AI-mechanics'. You'll be rolling on a lot of tables and some sort of GM is helpful, but you can play coop vs ai if you want to. Also you can supplement the rulesets with each other. I got the Boxing, Martial Arts and the basic cyber punk rules, but I never played it and it's been a while since I last read them, so I can't tell you more right now.

>>43562231
Kill-Teams, afaik, are somewhere between three and six models. If each player controls one kill team, but all players share a point pool it could work.

Then the GM would build the scenario and control the NPC models.

If you don't include named hero models or heroes that are the PCs, then it shouldn't feel too much like an RPG.

If you happen to own X-Wing models, there are people who made up rules for AI and a whole coop campaign with pilots leveling up and shit iirc.

>>43560470
4th edition D&D

>>43562457
Link?

>>43562329
The problem sometimes is that there are so few models involved that it becomes more a contest of the best miniature involved, or the best cheesed out / maxed out builds, and not a question of strategy.

Don't know if I'm explaining myself

>>43562556
http://dockingbay416.com/campaign/

>>43560470
Kingdom Death: Monster is one of the few that really fits this genre. See >>43481089