"Computer Aids Devolpement." Topic

Again I was looking for some help from those have made assists not on some debate on why they are good idea or not.

Hello? Hello? [tapping on microphone] Hello? Is this thing on?

Before you even think about which language to learn you need to define what you want to automate.

This stage is called A use case analysis.

If the rules are your original work then list the stages that the rule process the game play

I go you go will be easier that flexible bounds

(If it is not your own work then you need to get the permission of the copyright holder as you will incorporating his intellectual property in your game

If is likely you will have to pay them)

Then break this down into screens

Present the information a bit at a time do not overload the screen.

Where ever possible allow the user to sellect options from menus. this prevents data input error.

You can use the Unified Modeling Language to break things down into the blocks that will need to be programmed in the language of your choice

Best of luck

Hello? Hello? [tapping on microphone] Hello? Is this thing on?

I appreciate the links.

Much of this has also been why these programs are bad and why not to make them. I have done some already in VB.net but after all the advice and links now think maybe I should change.

No, I have people that don't want a assist program telling me how to make one. I have to sift through that noise. TO be blunt. I don't care about who doesn't want them.

Look to the left. Up a bit. Where it says:

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

If you don't like it, start your own forum, and screen out the undesirables. As it is, what I'm seeing from you is a list of behaviours that everyone else should change in order to fit your model of a wargamer.

The 'negative' replies, along with the 'unreasonable' demands from that other site you referenced should be sending a message. Perhaps a bit of introspection…

I know I don't write that bad, so your purposefully "misunderstanding". For what I I dont know nor care.

Must resist temptation… must resist temptation… must resist temptation…

Oh spare me. The obnoxiousness of these responses are totally unnecessary ans senseless. I don't write well but its not that unclear. The misinterpretations are CLEARLY purposeful.

Much of this has also been why these programs are bad

Not bad, just that they are not an easy cure for many of the problems you stated, Computer assists have disadvantages too.

The posts have only been pointing out some of the limitations in a balanced way to some of the claims you made.

If you want to successfully design a Computer assist then you need to take into account their limitations.

No one is stopping you designing the Computer assist the way you want – but you may have an audience of one!!!

I don't see how they cant solve anything. Modern techology seemingly has no bounds.

Sure you need the right tools for teh jobs and individual languages have limitations. But considering what has been achieved with programing, resolving some math for a wargame is a minor and easily attainable enterprise. Once the knowledge is attained to program it.

What could the computer not do for the player? Physically move the pieces in game or setup/cleanup.. If a player doesn't want that then PC games are the route to go.

I can think of no other limitations on a computer assist's potential ability.

What could the computer not do for the player? Physically move the pieces in game or setup/cleanup.. If a player doesn't want that then PC games are the route to go.

You claim they will speed up play?
The problem is you focus on the technology and forget the human element.

You acknowledge that wargamers like to roll dice
So the wargamer has to roll the dice then input the results into the PC

The same for measuring ranges, checking line of sight, etc.

so many things have to be done twice – it can get in the way of the game rather than help the game play

Most modern games are fast and free flowing, and the participants just want to play, not spend their leisure time as clerks!!

There are some good computer based tools for wargamers out there.
I listed a few for you
But they are things like army generators, or campaign managers
They do not try to intrude onto the tabletop game!

This again!!?? It makes no more sense the second time. All computer programs require input. Computer assists are bad cause they have no hands for a tape measure..LOL. This is a complaint from the pathetically lazy or people just trying to sabotage constructive communication with these endless pointless debates. Its a complaint far to absurd to be taken seriously.

Every key stroke, mouse movement, fire button push and joystick tug is input. People that want assist are intelligent enough to understand they must relay the activity on the board to the computer. Many use assists and like them. They are not deterred by the obvious fact they must type to get a computer to work.

No assists intrude. They assist. They are aptly named and are effective.

You claim they will speed up play?

I won't claim that all computer-assist wargame rules speed up play, as I've seen some that were so clumsy they actually slowed things down. A few of my own projects were headed down that road, so I dumped them and started something else.

I frequently give the examples of using my old computer-assist naval minaitures rules Shipbase III to do the battles of Jutland (72 ships if you stick to the big ones) and Tsushima (56 ships) in four to six hours, with two to a dozen players involved. I've done Tsushima solo a number of times and finished in under five hours. I've yet to see a non-computer-assist naval ruleset that can do that.

Some more examples: my old game group did quite a few games using my Star Fleet Battles program, featuring about 20 starships, and finished in about two hours. We played large Battletech games with 30 mechs on the table using my program for that, again finishing in about two hours. That's way faster than you can do with the "regular" rules.

Admittedly, the die-hard SFB and BT fans who tried it didn't like using the computer-assist programs because they really liked all that bookkeeping and accounting. That's a legitimate concern, I think. However, there were no die-hard SFB or BT fans in my game group, and we just wanted to have fast and fun games, so using the computer-assist versions was perfect for us.

Here's some photographic evidence of our group playing some of these games:
link

Do they look like they're having fun?

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that in those four-to-six our big naval battles, the people playing were a mix of experienced naval wargamers and people who'd never played any naval games at all before.

Same for the two-hour Star Fleet Battles and Battletech games: a few people were familiar with the original rules and had played the original (non-computer-assist) versions a few times, the rest had never played at all.

My point being that while I've heard some gamers say that you can do really big battles in four hours with Rules System X after the players have played the rules a bunch of times and have the charts memorized, players with no experience at all can do it the first time around, and have fun doing so, using computer-assisted rules.

When I was running demo games of Shipbase III at the big HMGS East conventions, I'd ask one of the players who had no computer experience at all to drive the keyboard for a few turns, just to demonstrate how easy it was. Worked great, and allowed me to chat a bit with other gamers.

Id be interested in the spreadsheets mentioned previously. How did they work. Hopefully I can get passed this negativity.