"Some Progress here Might be Good?" Topic

Hi,
We debate rules fairly often. Which is 'better', which is more 'accurate', what elements of combat, movement, and morale need to be modeled, etc. With almost 40 years in this hobby, I have noticed scale trends swing, opinions differ, but charts and dice are still in majority use, as they were when I was young. In my opinion, however, a problem in our hobby now is the trend to debate what we already have, rather than to progress. I assure you, if the majority of our fellow enthusiasts were in their 20's rather than 50's we would be using ultra detailed rules with unprecidented playability and ease of play on multiple interfaces around our still beautiful figures and tables. Maybe have more time to put into the art of it because we would be putting less into figuring out how to calculate a million variables with charts and dice. If you knew that your favorite detailed ruleset was doing everything it does now (and more), except inside a processer at speed with an easy interface-almost instantly rather than step by step 'by hand', which would you choose? The technology exists, and it is being used almost everywhere but in our games… I sometimes wonder why the wealthier of our fellows haven't funded this development yet and written their names forever with Featherstone and Quarrie on the roles of wargaming pioneers..
What do you think?
PS- remember, software does not preclude the use of art, research, reference, and guidance. That is what a good manual is for. It does speed play (multiple interface), and allows the sort of 'fog of war' that is otherwise practically impossible…

First, we already have computer moderated rules, Carnage and Glory. Second, the myth that a computer moderated system would work so much better with multiple player interfaces is just that a myth. The CG system can be run just as fast and in most cases faster than the traditional dice dominated rules system even if all information must be sent through a single interface. Multiple interfaces would raise all sorts of problems with ensuring the integrity of the data entered and sequencing…it might work but would not be worth the effort.

Wasn't Ex-illis a step in that direction ?

ex-illis.com

The only advantage I have EVER seen with computer moderated rules is fog of war. That element adds genuine surprise and unpredictability to a game, make it fun and exciting. But we give an element of playability to do it.

As for wargamers in their 20s…I've notice the younger crowd cares LESS about accuracy. They sometimes question why the figures even need paint, much less getting the right colors on them…..

if your computer knows what moves you made on the table, then thats when your computer moderated rules start to win.

but so long as I have to tell the computer what I can see – whether there is terrain, or I am flanked, or what is shooting at me – thats all time wasted.

fnacy claculations are all well and good, but if the data entry burden is not crossed, there is no gain.

Naval with RFID chips in the ships, and a thing to pick up on the movement and feed it into the computer is where the first break comes.
Or maybe photo recognition (although I'm very skeptical about that working).

other than that, you just trade mentally calculating with easy moveoment, ofr computer caluclating with a load of updating positions before the clauclation can be made.

and the beer can get spilled.

Remember, we are talking about complicated software that takes time, and therefore money, to develop. hence the reference to wealthier fellows. Frankly, it is not an issue of 'if' those issues can be solved, but 'how fast' they will be. It's coming- just not quickly. It could be here already if the will and resource was there. I think one of the barriers to progress is the inability to imagine that problems can be solved. In fact, the issues mentioned above have all been solved in other aplications already. Imagine that.

Keraunos, I respect your opinions greatly. I would humbly submit that the amount of variables one could represent in a combat calculation with a computer surpasses doing it 'by hand' when the requirements are also time and ease of play. it is much more than a 'trade'of inputs, starting first with the ability a computer has to remember everything that has gone before accurately :)

Pancerni2, i agree with everything you say about C&G- I use it religously myself. Except that what you say about multiple intefaces- they do speed input and are hardly a myth- you see them working perfectly everytime you go to the supermarket. They just haven't been translated to miniatures gaming yet. Only online gaming.
Clay- the point I was making is that that demographic demands the technology and is more comfortable using it.

Damn these young kids and their loud music and unpainted figures!

Sorry general, the example of the supermarket is not applicable…each shopper is engaged in an activity that has no relationship to the other shoppers/or cashiers…they are not shopping against each other…I'm suprised that you haven't suggested bar codes and a reader for each unit…that would make sure the unit information is entered correctly but what about ranges and modifiers…you wouldn't run any faster by letting each player enter that information from their own interface…let's use this example, two units firing at one another…which player enters the information? the first firer, OK, distance is 75 yards…no says the other player, it's 100 yards…first, how would player two know 75 yards was entered unless their interface shows the information from that player, and how do you make sure the correct players are linked together and over the course of a game each player may have to deal with 3 or 4 other players, do they have to resync, then they have to resolve the dispute, etc…and who thinks this would be faster than just giving the information to one central entry point?

But of course we've also heard from the naysayers who claim that if we can't advance to the ultimate in technology, having the computer track movements on the table, none of this is worth it and I'll just go back to my 19th century technology of charts and dice. Yeah, that makes sense.

Fog of war is one advantage of computer moderated rules but so is keeping track of fatigue and morale change, both up and down, over the course of the game…and yes, beer will be spilt, but hopefully not by the GM.

Well corporal, The point is that the interfaces are reliable and capable. If you don't think it is possible to use the technology in a competitive gaming situation, I am sure I can find a few million online gamers to refute that notion!
(just teasing!) Oh yea, THANK GOD for C&G when it comes to morale and fatigue!

I'm on a computer at least 10 hours a day for 5 days straight. Last thing I want to do when I war game is to get back on one, even if its for pleasure. That's just me though.

Honestly? The main reason we haven't seen an explosion of computer-driven minis games is that there's a bigger audience for your game if you can "finish" it as a computer game.

I don't know about the rest of you coders, but writing algorithm code is more fun than writing GUI code. If I can write as little GUI code as possible -- and shove the work off to my digital artist -- I'm a happy camper.

I'm with Clay on this. I have enough paranoia waiting for Skynet to develop without worrying about my gaming. I too have 40 years in gaming and do not wish to see more computer involvement.

"I too have 40 years in gaming and do not wish to see more computer involvement"

I agree there is a limit…a fine balance between using the computer for mundane tasks such as computing information on one hand and giving it all over to a computer on the other…that's why they created computer games…you don't need miniatures for them. You wanna roll dice, knock yourself out. I don't want to see more computer involvement, what we've got now is just fine.

Sorry general, the example of the supermarket is not applicable…each shopper is engaged in an activity that has relationship to the other shoppers/or cashiers…they are not shopping against each other…I'm suprised that you haven't suggest bar codes and a reader for each unit…that would make sure the unit information is entered correctly but what about ranges and modifiers…you wouldn't run any faster by letting each player enter that information from their own interface…let's use this example, two units firing at one another…which player enters the information? the first firer, OK, distance is 75 yards…no says the other player, it's 100 yards…first, how would player two know 75 yards was entered unless their interface shows the information from that player, and how do you make sure the correct players are linked together and over the course of a game each player may have to deal with 3 or 4 other players, do they have to resync, then they have to resolve the dispute, etc…and who thinks this would be faster than just giving the information to one central entry point?

But of course we've also heard from the naysayers who claim that if we can't advance to the ultimate in technology, having the computer track movements on the table, none of this is worth it and I'll just go back to my 19th century technology of charts and dice. Yeah, that makes sense.

Fog of war is one advantage of computer moderated rules but so is keeping track of fatigue and morale change, both up and down, over the course of the game…and yes, beer will be spilt, but hopefully not by the GM.

Has anyone tried gaming with a Laser Tape Measure?

Ohhh .. cool thread !

Panceri – you are on the right track with those comments. Sharing that information in realtime across multiple interfaces raises some interesting challenges. Those exact issues you mentioned have definitely come up in playtesting.

Getting that little bit of code working (so that 2 or more players are instantly involved with the process of defining the tactical factors), is easy enough .. but then there are human factors as well. If one of the players dozes off and does not pay attention to the prompts on their screen – that can end up slowing things down … if the whole system is waiting for input from the sleeping player.

The solution to a lot of this mix of human factors and technical factors can be found in George Jefferies work on the topic (the old VLB subject). If the game flows in terms of decision points rather than fixed length slices of game time, many of these issues get bypassed.

For a simple example – lets say a couple of opposing Divisions lined up with muskets advance to contact. The computer works out how far each formation can move before things hot up (players get to move their formations X or Y inches towards contact), and then things start happening at long / medium / short range, depending on the orders / formation / terrain in that part of the battlefield. In that case, there is no debate needed on whether its 75 yards, or 100 yards. In this case, the computer might decide that a firefight breaks out at 80.

Valmy to Waterloo has some good combat models in there which follow this principle to some extent.

Strangely enough, what does seem to work in playtesting is having the computer run the whole game autonomously with minimal player input. You then give the players limited oppotunities during the flow of the game to interject with commander actions, new orders, or the ability to override / debate or electronically vote on the tactical factors as they happen.

Unlike traditional gaming, each player's inputs into the battle are kept secret from other players, since there is no open declaration of orders and intentions broadcast across the table to a GM.

It gives the miniatures battle a different feel for sure. There is a large and dramatic event unfolding on the table, and if you are on the ball, organised, attentive, and operating with a plan .. then you get to influence the outcome, confound and even ensnare your opponents in your plan. Feels good to me.

A lot of your other concerns seem to be centered on the question of 'how ?', ie :

first, how would player two know 75 yards was entered unless their interface shows the information from that player, and how do you make sure the correct players are linked together and over the course of a game each player may have to deal with 3 or 4 other players, do they have to resync, then they have to resolve the dispute, etc…

… those are perfectly valid questions. Asking them demonstrates that you understand that is not a simple thing to get right, and very easy to get wrong.

Its just an archtitectural issue though. This problem of ensuring that all data is synched on all terminals in realtime is nothing really new, and it is not confined to wargaming.

Technically, it just means using some pretty weird tools, and being in a pretty weird headspace to write the application :) Other than the weirdness aspect, its not that hard once you get into it.

The code itself will be fully open source anyway, so if later on you ever want to see 'how' it works – its all going to be there for download and modification. Because of the nature of the application though, the code itself is pretty weird, and the learning curve on the tools is nasty stuff. Nasty, but great fun !

Would be extremely cool if others got into the code and added their 2c.

Some current miniature games use hexes. If the hexes are number. Then the computer can figure ranges with just those numbers.
Of course the real solution is a holo-deck.

Yesssss Kitty….My evil plan to keep this subject on the board is a success! Soon an army of coding minions will arise! AH HA ha HA HA HA

Oh sorry, I didn't know you were there. Lovely weather eh?

"Strangely enough, what does seem to work in playtesting is having the computer run the whole game autonomously with minimal player input. You then give the players limited oppotunities during the flow of the game to interject with commander actions, new orders, or the ability to override / debate or electronically vote on the tactical factors as they happen."

This sounds like a sologamers dream as well. Playtest opportunities? Count me in!

I'm on a computer at least 10 hours a day for 5 days straight. Last thing I want to do when I war game is to get back on one, even if its for pleasure. That's just me though.

Me, too. I mean, I will happily use online (or on-phone) software tools to put together an army list, but the last thing I want to do is to 'play' on the computer.

If you are tracking fatigue, I'm sure the computer is the easiest way to do it. Also, hidden deployment or ambushes are much easier to manage with a computer, though digital cameras make it pretty easy to say 'here's where I deployed this unit.'

the thing is, almost all of those variables which you will want the computer top handle are pretty irrelevant to the sort of game we actually play with soldiers in most battle sized games.

wind strength and direction, level of rain, angle of slope, quality of musket and powder, number of rounds fired i.e. fouling of piece, speed and movement angle of the target.

none of that makes much differece to anything except individual aimed fire – i.e skirmish gaming (at best).

It would be great to have for a naval gunnery game – but absolutely useless in a refight of waterloo.

What does matter however, is stuff you ahve to tell the computer after every move – am i flanked, how far did I march and how quickly, did I retain order.

And those things – until the day when the computer knows what moves you make on the table – can easily be seen by the eye and understood making the computer nice to have, but hardly essential.

so look to naval computer gaming first, and then perhaps some sort of tak commander style skirmish game and air wargaming to follow – they all need that sort of hyper detailed data.

but for waterloo? what sort of data do you need in there? depth of mud between the 50th and 150th meter along the great ridge?

K, those things you mention as being what you want the computer to do are really not, and not really what the computer does on the tabletop…but..in another vein…

I started a real er, 'discussion' once by saying "you don't know anything about Napoleoncic wargaming if you only play or refight battles. The campaign is everything. Learn to campaign."

Of course I was paraphrasing Napoleon, but IMOH it is true in this hobby.

In my mind, computer tactical rules are great, but campaigns are the computers real niche. Of course those of you whom I correspond with about this will be smiling (well, groaning), as you are well familliar with my continual blathering on the subject.

The computer will make it possible for our battles to have the kind of context that the myriad details of campaigning actually gave them. The will make a decent simulation of the operations that should influence players decisions practical…someday soon I hope. Until then, any battle outside of the context of the campaign is thin soup anyway if you want a real challenge.

This sounds to me like goal line technology for wargames. The fun and unpredictability is heavily reduced if technology is going to be running the game.

The wargame is essentially a social activity and done in leisure time so why is it necessary to speed things up. Isn't the idea of a leisure activity to relax and enjoy doing something you want to, not have to.

A place for everything and computers in their place. If C&G works but at a slower speed than it could, never mind if you enjoy using it as part of the game. If the next version is quicker then great.

We are most of us short of time to setup, play and packup but the many unfinished games leave plenty of interesting what ifs to debate. Having fast computer moderation may well change nothing as people play more ambitious games and still run out of time.

Trying to introduce computer control into a tabletop game is missing the point completely.
If you want a computer controlled game, play a computer wargame.
The point of a tabletop game is the spectacle and the social interaction, both of which the computer doesn't help with at all. Existing computer controlled games have interfaces so clunky they are almost useless, but even if you had some super-slick interface, the computer is really adding little or nothing to the game experience.

On the other hand, if you are talking about computers for strategic stuff – carrier battles, hunt for the Bismarck, campaigns, then yes, they are excellent. But you don't need any fancy graphics for that – text will do fine.

There is also the point that tabletop games are very much a minority activity – so who in their right mind would invest the time and effort to computerise them anyway? You'd never get your money back.

Here's your progress:

Augmented Light Bulb Turns a Desk Into a Touch Screen

Put one of these over your gaming table, and the biggest interface problem is solved.

Several people had hit the nail on the head…the computer should not take the place of players or limit their options, but be used to enhance the complexity and "realism" (I use that word advisedly) of the game while at the same time allowing the players to concentrate of the historic role of battlefield commanders.

db

One nice side effect of computer moderated games is that there is less room to argue over the process. I noticed this when playing "Steel Panthers" versus dice and paper miniature games. Because the calculation process is hidden from you you can't get any traction in an argument.

"the computer should not take the place of players or limit their options, but be used to enhance the complexity and "realism" (I use that word advisedly) of the game while at the same time allowing the players to concentrate of the historic role of battlefield commanders."

Exactly So! (In increasinly sophisticated fashion)

>One nice side effect of computer moderated games is that there is less room to argue over the process. I noticed this when playing "Steel Panthers" versus dice and paper miniature games. Because the calculation process is hidden from you you can't get any traction in an argument.

You think this is nice? If it becomes obvious that there are flaws in the cpu software's simulation model it kills the game entirely. I get the point about the argument part but it throws out the baby with the bathwater.

The problem with software is differences with the assumptions of the authors towards a model of simulation are very difficult or impossible to tweak with compiled code.

If Featherstone said a line should break a column by firepower 40% of the time and I disagree…I just pencil in the change.

Rules debates in simulation occur after the game is over and result in the modification of the rules. Can't do it with a computer program.

The problem with software is differences with the assumptions of the authors towards a model of simulation are very difficult or impossible to tweak with compiled code.

…

Rules debates in simulation occur after the game is over and result in the modification of the rules. Can't do it with a (compiled) computer program

Agree.

Thats why well commented source code needs to be included, plus clear notes on where to find the calculations, how to change them, and provide test cases to self-QA any user mods.

House rules and tweaks are a big part of the hobby. There is no reason why this aspect should not be included, just because there is a computer helping out.

If you cant change it easily, it is of limited value. (in my opinion anyway) So ideally – open source, well commented, and with a really clean and simple API to allow extensions.

"You think this is nice? If it becomes obvious that there are flaws in the cpu software's simulation model it kills the game entirely. I get the point about the argument part but it throws out the baby with the bathwater.

Rules debates in simulation occur after the game is over and result in the modification of the rules. Can't do it with a computer program."

I'm as much of a tinkerer as anyone but the premise that computer moderated rules are flawed since you can't change the code to "fix" something you think is broken is absurd. For Carnage and Glory there is an opportunity for lively discussion on their Yahoo site about any number of tweaks…and significant changes have been made as a result of those discussions.

There is plenty of opportunity for individual house rules in CG but the tweaks for more systematic.

the premise that computer moderated rules are flawed since you can't change the code to "fix" something you think is broken is absurd.

Ummm .. how is that 'absurd' ? If there is no source code available, then how are you supposed to get in and change the code, for whatever reason motivates that change ?

A: You can't.

In the vast majority of cases, people do not use the access to source code to "fix things which are broken". They use the code to add new ideas and enhancements. Again, this is nothing new.

No code = no opportunity to add new ideas.

If your group is using, say Black Powder … and you want to play with some radical new ideas within that ruleset, then its simply a matter of grabbing a pen and paper and getting it done.

You simply cannot do that with software which ships minus the source code. (Well – technically you can, but that is a black art in itself, and well outside the scope of this discussion.)

Nobody is suggesting that proprietary software never provides any support services, or the ability to evolve to meet user requirements over time. But that is entirely different to being able to actually modify that software yourself.

The OP mentioned a couple of radical new ideas which are not addressed by any existing software available today. Some of these ideas have been floated on the C&G forum that you mention … going back a number of years now.

So there is at least 1 concrete example of a "lively discussion on a Yahoo site about a number of tweaks", which after several years yields no results. That is not exactly what one would call a "solution" in the commonly accepted sense of the word.

And that is not to denigrate C&G in any way – Nigel has done a brilliant job with his product. One of the strengths of C&G is that Nigel has maintained a strong focus on his own particular vision for what a computer moderated system should look like …. so any radical departure from that vision is not in his best interests, or those of his users.

This discussion on TMP is (I assume), about the possibility of a new and different approach, which brings some of that web 2.0 / smartphone / multiuser goodness to the tabletop. The emergence of such a new system does not preclude anyone from continuing to enjoy what they already enjoy … its just something new and different to add to the mix.

I don's see this as a case of bringing computers in to wreck a good game of miniatures. I see this as introducing miniatures into widely accepted computer gaming.

There are a lot of people out there who have no existing interest in miniature gaming, but who are excited by the prospect of a huge and immersive game system similar to the OP's description – which happens to use miniatures instead of computer graphics. If that works the way I think it will, it will bring a lot of new faces, new ideas and new blood into the hobby.

Steve64,

The code is intellectual property…to ensure the integrity of the product the code is not available for modification. Name me one mainsream computer wargame that allows you to modify the code? Many encourage modifications to the graphics, etc. and the ability to develop additional scenarios, but which ones actually allow you to change the fire tables, morale tables, etc.?

Traditional paper and ink rules can be modified to your hearts content but that's more a function of the loss of control by the author rather than something offered as part of the package. The agreement I make with the author when I buy the computer moderated rules is I accept the loss of the ability to modify the system in exchange for the benefits inherent with the rules.

If I modify Bold Action for example (which I am doing) is it still Bold Action? And, if I actually played tournaments,which I don't, could I use my modified version…I think not.

"The OP mentioned a couple of radical new ideas which are not addressed by any existing software available today. Some of these ideas have been floated on the C&G forum that you mention … going back a number of years now.

So there is at least 1 concrete example of a "lively discussion on a Yahoo site about a number of tweaks", which after several years yields no results. That is not exactly what one would call a "solution" in the commonly accepted sense of the word"

So, just because your idea, which was lively discussed by…you, didn't get any traction the process is a failure…try again, its not all about you.

"There are a lot of people out there who have no existing interest in miniature gaming, but who are excited by the prospect of a huge and immersive game system similar to the OP's description – which happens to use miniatures instead of computer graphics. If that works the way I think it will, it will bring a lot of new faces, new ideas and new blood into the hobby."

You really think so huh? Well, knock yourself out spending the time and effort necessary to create the system…then give it away. People don't play miniature wargames for any number of reasons, the least of which is that it's not a computer game. Many just don't have the inclination or interest in painting/collecting miniatures.

OK, Ill bite.

Name me one mainsream computer wargame that allows you to modify the code?

A: Janus, and numerous derivatives.

Its only 1 example, but Janus is the 800lb Gorilla of computer moderated wargames. It ships with the code, has a huge user base, and is extensively modified, analysed, and studied in depth – all around the world, every day of the week. Mainstream enough ?

Depending on your definition of 'mainstream' and 'wargame', I can name heaps more if you like.

…. but which ones actually allow you to change the fire tables, morale tables, etc.?

A: That is all data, not code. Many closed source applications allow modification of table driven data such as this. Changing some simple data tables is not the same as being able to modify the application though. Quite a different kettle of fish.

The agreement I make with the author when I buy the computer moderated rules is I accept the loss of the ability to modify the system in exchange for the benefits inherent with the rules.

Cool !

But why did you accept that restriction in the first place ? Was it really a concious choice on your part …. or did you have no alternative but to agree ? Thanks in advance for answering that question.

If I modify Bold Action for example (which I am doing) is it still Bold Action?

Not sure what you are referring to there. Which product are you referring to, and what method are you using to implement this change ? In what way do you consider this a major change to the operation of the system ? Thanks in advance for answering that as well.

So, just because your idea, which was lively discussed by … you, didn't get any traction the process is a failure … try again, its not all about you.

A: I have never posted anything on the C&G yahoo forum …. wrong person, sorry bout that.

I am referring to the discussions going back to 2006. If you have a look at msg #131, you see this discussion, which I will summarize for your benefit :

Wed Dec 6, 2006 5:24 am

Nigel,
what's your thoughts/plans on creating a network version? The only complaint I've had from players I've run games for is the single point of entry. In big games it can really slow things down,

thanks
Ed

.. the thread goes on for a bit, and the author offers this post, which is perfectly sensible :

Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:14 am

This is not the first time that this question has been asked. he simple answer is that currently there is no way to network the program across multiple computer terminals, with multiple GM's.

This is not to say that it couldn't be done, it's simply that the system wasn't written with a capacity to be networked.

. Nigel

It only takes a white belt in google-fu to find other instances that suggest that _some_ players think that having a networked C&G version would be a cool idea.

Its not MY idea at all – that idea belongs to many other people instead. Just saying …

Unfortunately, those players who _do_ like the idea, cannot do anything about it, because there is no source code available :(

MY idea is quite different again. What I want is a simplified Janus type system, geared at Napoleonic campaigns. I think that would be cool.

I have never hopped on ANY forum ANYWHERE, and asked ANYONE to "please consider this software idea of mine, and then do it for me". I don't work that way, at least not with software. I might ask for a hand building a kitchen, or welding something .. but not software.

Well, knock yourself out spending the time and effort necessary to create the system … then give it away

Yep, we agree :)

Thats a good plan, and it works for me !

I personally think its the _only_ way to write significant systems.

Thankfully, most other software writers think the same way, and thats why we have things like The Internet – think of all those layers upon layers of software that hold everything together …. all open source, based on peer reviewed standards, and 'given away' for 'free'. Lucky us in userland.

Its a good way to make money too. Last project where we 'gave away' the source code 'for free', we pulled in $6.8 USDm over 4 years with 1.5 programmers. The project before that – same method, $2.3 USDm over 18 months with 4 programmers. The project before that – larger team of 30 or so, $15 USDm over 24 months.

Its extremely tough these days trying to make any money at all selling closed-source computer software. Very tough. The maintenance liability on closed source code is a killer, especially in an age of rapidly evolving standards. Its also an extremely risky proposition to buy into.

Its much simpler to open the code, and have a different business model that accepts this reality.

The code is intellectual property…to ensure the integrity of the product the code is not available for modification

Thats a whole other topic. I thought that meme had been cooked to a burnt crisp decades ago already.

link

Obviously not.

Well Steve64, you've talked yourself right past the issues…Janus? Not a programmer and never heard of it…what titles have they developed? I asked about computer wargames, not generic software. I never said you had posted to the CG Yahoo group…and now I wonder why, given that site is the core of the users, but your idea has been discussed there. As you noted, the issue of multiple interfaces has been raised but several people…it appears attractive on the surface but once you tease out the implemenation it losses alot of appeal.

Good luck with your project.

Well, I have to weigh in.

(multiple interfaces) only loose appeal if you accept that the implementation difficulties can't be worked out.
Are you saying they never will be? That would be shortsighted.
Are you saying that it would be too much work? That would be shortsighted.
Are you saying it will never be 'worth it' monetarily? That would be shortsighted.

Eventually, everything Steve explains and proposes is going to become a reality. It is all going to work eventually, because people like him can do it, want to do it, and have the support of enough people to get it done.

Multiple user interfaces will work, and will work well. It might be a year, it might be five, but it will happen.
This may not be someones preferred way to play wargames-so be it. Each to their own. The point remains, it's coming. You may want to try it when it does. You don't have to.

As always, it would be better to offer good legitimate discussion for the purpose of helping development, rather than naysaying the possibility and exposing a lack of foresight. The history of technology shows us that 'can't' continues to be proven an irelevant view.

It hardly seems worth naysaying multiple interface computer miniatures gaming if one is not interested in it- only, I suppose, if one is afraid of change. Be assured, technology is no threat to the old system and wont supplant the present 'gaming workforce' – no 'Luddite inclinations or uprisings'necessary! :) Hey, it's coming. Take it or leave it.

Aside from increasing our abilitiy as players to simulate the experience of commanding Napoleonic forces in more depth, part of the goal of this technology is to give the experience to others. I assure you, based on the feedback from my son and his friends (experienced multiplayer gamers) it will stimulate not only many of us who have many years in the hobby, but will draw in younger players as well.

One day, may of those who feel inclined to socff now will be playing Napoleonic wargames as we imagine- and enjoying them. They will not usurp or supplant anyones Favorite Rules unless they become that…but they will be a boon to the hobby and a valuable tool for many of us.

Best,
Rob

General,

Having been involved with computer moderated wargaming since it's inception in the early 1980's I find your singleminded belief that multiple interfaces will become a standard element amusing…there were those that thought computer moderated miniatures gaming itself would replace the traditional approach back when it all began…it's been over 30 years now and we have one system that is mainstream and reliable…there have been others that have tried but you'd think in 30 years we'd already have the computer moderated versions of Empire and the others, but we don't and it's not because of a single interface.

Remember, this ain't Halo or Call of Duty, so the multiplayer experience of your son or my sons for that matter is essentially meaningless in this discussion…if they were drawn to miniatures wargaming they'd be doing it rather than playing first person shooter games…

My child likes to paint figures, write orders AND play Halo. HE sees the value to tradition and technology, and understands more than many that they are not mutually exclusive.

My belief is hardly singleminded. It is supportive and positive, and imaginative- I believe I can say that.
Everyone won't be doing it-obviously-just some of us.

My Goodness. "It hasn't happened in 30 years so it can't happen now" Preposterous.

Happy Wargaming To You.

Some pics :

Janus – this is the name of a software product, a computer moderated wargame.

This is the system in use every day in the military for training and battlefield / command simulation. Its been around since the early 80s at least, and grown ever since in various forms.

It allows multiple players to take command of forces on a large and immersive battle.

Depending on nature of the training exersize, the tactical aspects can be handled by the computer in an abstract fashion internally – OR – using miniatures – OR – sometimes using real troops in the field.

Its very cool, and good fun to use.

A screenshot from a battalion commander's view :

This is for a modern battle (obviously), so the interface resembles the theme of what a modern commander would likely experience at the front in a real engagement.

Here are some other shots of Janus in action :

Some Greek officers having a pre-wargame briefing over a Grand Tactical map

Look – MULTIPLE workstations !

Same group, officers team up to take command of their forces on a workstation. Note the use of the paper map and the use of the radio to communicate with other teammates. The combination of the computer view, the paper map and the radio make it as close to the real thing as possible.

Here is another one, this is the Chinese PLA playing a multi-user computer moderated wargame. As far as I know, Janus is not for sale in Chine, so the Chinese have done the job of writing their own version. Proving once again that it is not an impossible task. They must have decided at some point that having such a system was worth the time and effort to build.

Note that red team and blue team both have multiple computers to control their forces.

Note also the lovely miniatures table in the middle.

This is in common use every day, its extremely mainstream, extremely reliable, and has been through at least 30 years of thorough development already.

Its open source, and there are a huge stack of add on features. I worked on a couple of these, including a module to model a specific set of atmospheric conditions which can influence the battlefield.

Janus is incredibly hardcore though, at least in the way it has been written. No choice, because it started in the 80's, its all written in low level languages …. so the difficult bits of multi-user are all written from scratch in C.

Its much easier to do the same thing now using higher level languages, and some of the cool new development tools aimed at the interactive web (node, angular, flash, websockets … etc, etc)

Computer moderated Empire. Such a thing exists, here are some more pics :

It is multi-user, it does the job, and is free / open source. Similar to Janus, but with a more Napoleonic style interface, and uses Empire for the game mechanics.

Problem with this application is that it is written using "state of the art" web 1.0 tools – PHP / mySQL on an apache server.

Such a toolkit is ideal for writing very fast multi-user applications delivered over a web interface. Makes it easy.

What this web 1.0 technology is not good at is solving the non-trivial issue of real time synch of data. That is a real hairy problem. Its also the same issue that is preventing C&G from taking itself to the next level.

Nigel would agree. Its not trivial.

it appears attractive on the surface but once you tease out the implemenation it losses alot of appeal.

I don't read Nigel's replies on this issue to mean the same thing that you are reading into it. I see that he is saying it is not feasible, instead of not desirable. They 2 different words.

Enter web 2.0, and a raft of excessively amazing new development tools – freely available (including source code), from many many contributors, and funded collectively by companies like both Microsoft AND Google to name only 2.

These new tools really do nail the most difficult problem of real time data synchronisation, and make it easy to write applications that require this. They make an already desirable solution now feasible.

So all I am saying is that this "idea" is not an attempt to do anything new and unproven. Its been in active use for 30+ years already, and is proven to provide an excellent realistic simulation for real battlefield command.

It is taking that existing, proven idea, and implementing it for a Napoleonic battle.

Drifting slightly off-topic, have you seen 'Battle for Wesnoth' ?

Hex based map, turn based, multi-player wargame set in a fantasy setting. Highly detailed unit and combat model, excellent graphics and storyline, and tonnes of user contributed additions, scenarios, and combat engines. Freely available and open source.

Very good examples Steve. Interesting stuff. I'd like to add a few more normal mainstream commercial wargames:

Slitherine's Battle Academy can be modded to do almost anything (and you can distribute your modifications through Slitherine for other players to download). From link : "The Slitherine TUrnBased Engine (STUB) is an engine designed to be flexible enough to
manage almost any turn-based game using a tile approach. It uses scripting in a C-style
format to manage almost all of the game and UI tasks, and allows for almost every file in the
game to be over-ridden on a per-campaign basis."

Of course many, many commercial wargames includes plain-text data files (and often scripts) that let's you modify high-level things like unit stats, combat tables, terrain etc. The many games in John Tiller's various Campaign series for instance. Each comes with documentation how to modify the game data for various effects.

I still think there are many reasons to prefer manual games, but it is not true that computer games have to be (or are) difficult to modify to fix most things you do not like. Of course (except for games like Battle Academy) most low-level things will be difficult to modify without access to source code.

I started a thread on bgg a few weeks ago listing open source wargames: link

I'm sure there are many, many I have not yet added that are worth adding.

That is on my recently created guild for wargame programming. Those here interested in making their own computer moderated games might be interested in joining.

Technology to use cameras to track many tokens on a game board has existed for at least 10 years (probably 20-30). Seems like a common thing to do in computer labs at universities (at least it was ~10 years ago when I last spent some time looking at it). Typically you use some special markings in bright colors to make it easier to identify tokens. Of course RFID and similar has also been used. It's not rocket science and not difficult to find various open source implementations to download.

I think a more modern approach would be to use the camera in a smartphone. Would be surprised if nothing like that already exists?

But I think using the computer (or phone) to drive the game instead of constantly having to feed it with updates manually sounds like a great approach too. Compared to driving a game using cards or chit-pulls you could do all sorts of tricks with a computer/smartphone. Imagine a huge deck of random events that also contained logic and could create a random evolving branching story and keep track of things outside of the board. An even triggered on turn 4 might cause a follow-up to happen on turn 14 that makes more sense than just random draws of events and is less work for the players than something like the Ambush! paragraph booklet.

VLB also sounds like a good idea, given few enough units and that the computer has its own internal model of how everything ought to be, with as little as possible having to go from players to computer. Or you could do things like "OK, now you can move 3rd brigade. When done, point your mobile camera at it, with at least three off-board colored registration marks visible in the view". Doesn't sound like it would be more difficult to make than any of those barcode scanning apps.

Thanks Pellen – thats great thinking, and I am enjoying reading your BGG posts too.

Im an lgeneral addict from way back, and have lost many a night playing that, and modding the codebase too :)

Interesting ideas on the automated capture of data from the table into the backend. Lots of ways of skinning that cat. I have some cheap RFID gear on my gaming table … and some arduinos floating around too … promising things there, but very much a work in progress. The real cheap stuff is very low range though (10cm max effective range)

I think eventually, it should be OK to build mini-arduino type RFID sensors into the terrain board in a grid pattern. Technically its pretty insane – turning the terrain board into a low power wireless mesh network might sound a little over the top, but the end result would be unobtrusive if done properly. Just lay a terrain mat over the sensor grid, and you are good to go.

Really like where your thinking is coming from on a range of issues. PM sent on the BGG site to touch base and take things to the next stage.

Thanks a million.

Turning the entire table into something like a huge wacom tablet (or array of tablets) (if I understand that technology right)?

If I ever find the time to do something like this (using transmitters or cameras) I would probably simplify the problem by using grid-based movement, like the old Squad Bashing rules with a 6x4 grid. That should allow for some margin of error. Could be combined with the computer-driven game approach too (but that needs a better name, because CDG is already taken to mean card-driven game).

As many computer programers have learned, you cannot substitute technology for a good game. I have never played Janus, which, as I understand it, is used for instruction not to play games. The photos are, however, instructive as the participants are not dealing with human opponents but rather computer screens.

I have played computer generater rules twice, but not C&G. I was present when Panzeri ran a Borodino weekend using the program. It required 6 computers and 8 judges. The problem is as it is when computers are inserted into a miniatures game, it takes time, lots of time, to enter the data while most of the gamers stand around or sit bored while the task is being performed.

23 years ago when NBs was first published I thought by 2012 game design would have greatly advanced. Alas, the machinations of today's Napoleonic rules produced by the major companies are not much different than those of 30 years ago.

So rather than do things efficiently rules clunk along like Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang. The irrational refusal to dispense with the d6 is one of the culprits. For the life of my I cannot understand how it is more efficient to roll multiple d6s multiple times is efficient.

Quite apart the total lack of game designers to bring a fresh look at the subject is both distressing and disappointing.

Musket era cavalry is an excellent example. One would have thought some bright fellow would have thought to simply place it, like off-board artillery in 20th Century games. But no, on the tactical table, Cavalry is moved inch-by-inch taking forever in gaming time to get where it's going, slowing the game to no end to arrive at the same outcome. And there's the rub. Many gamers just gots to know the process when the outcome, whih is little different, is what is important.

So topics such as this get sidetracked on one detour after another, for no good purpose and Napoleonic rules such as those produced by the major companies continue to be no different than those of 30 yeas ago.

Bob Coggins

Pellen wrote:

Turning the entire table into something like a huge wacom tablet (or array of tablets) (if I understand that technology right)?

You got it. Assuming the playing pieces have RFID tags, and the table contains RFID readers in a grid, you should be able to sense where each piece is from the signal strength – similar to a phased array sensor (in theory).

The cost of getting there is minimal.

Making that work with cheap equipment though … err, need a really long rainy day. I dont think the low end stuff can cope with that sort of load though, with stacks of units on the table.

Simpler manual solutions in the meantime for sure.

Hi Bob, thanks for weighing in. Your experience in this field is highly regarded, and your thoughts deservedly appreciated.

I will try and break your reply down a bit.

As many computer programers have learned, you cannot substitute technology for a good game.

Yes, very much so.

Writing code is relatively easy. Making a game is an art.

I have never played Janus, which, as I understand it, is used for instruction not to play games. The photos are, however, instructive as the participants are not dealing with human opponents but rather computer screens.

Yes and No.

What Janus is doing in those examples is providing each player in the game with the information flow that is only relevant and knowable to them.

They are definitely playing against other people, and it is also possible that the orders they are giving, and the information they are receiving is coming from real soldiers on real exersizes.

Janus is sitting in the middle of all this, doing the traffic cop part for the information flow, and doing it in real time without delays.

Not suggesting this is the basis of a good game – as its not meant to be fun – just realistic. I am only siting this as one example of a well tested implementation of the ideas expressed in the OPs' post. Just saying – its not like this is technically impossible or anything, and using Janus as proof of that assertion.

I have played computer generater rules twice, but not C&G. I was present when Panzeri ran a Borodino weekend using the program. It required 6 computers and 8 judges.

The problem is as it is when computers are inserted into a miniatures game, it takes time, lots of time, to enter the data while most of the gamers stand around or sit bored while the task is being performed.

C&G is a good implementation for what it is designed to do.

However, it is not a good implementation as soon as the game reaches a certain size. The problem that you experienced in that large scale Borodino game (using a system that would have worked the same way as C&G) is that the data entry part is a bottleneck.

The data entry is a bottleneck, because of the need to funnel everything through a single judge for a given section of the battlefield.

The only reason for having to funnel everything through a single umpire – is quite simply because C&G (and other CM rules for Napoleonics) are all single user applications. It is designed only to provide an interface for 1 umpire at a time.

This is not a generic problem with computer noderated rules. It is a side effect of one particular style of implemnentation.

You would have exactly the same problem if you played a large game using NB – but stipulated that you only had 1 dice to use between all players, and only 1 umpire to roll that dice. Its exactly the same thing.

23 years ago when NBs was first published I thought by 2012 game design would have greatly advanced. Alas, the machinations of today's Napoleonic rules produced by the major companies are not much different than those of 30 years ago.

I agree.

NB is a fine game design, and the continued popularity of the concept is proof in the pudding.

There are several other great game designs from the same period of 30 years or so, and not much has changed.

I am only speculating, but one reason for that might be that – hey, we collectively got it right back then, we have already acheived the correct balance in game design, thanks to the work of many authors such as yourself.

There are plenty of things that have not changed radically since they acheived a certain level of goodness way back when. Miniatures themselves, the paints we paint them in, the paintbrushes we use, the scenery, the rules mechanics. Minor tweaks, slicker presentation, wider range and lower costs perhaps – but they are essentially unchanged.

There has been no driving need for radical change.

But as you elluded to in your opening sentence – game design and technical implementation details are 2 separate kettle of fish entirely.

NB happens to use a technical implementation of dice, a few charts, rulers, and limited bookkeeping as the technical implementation. This implementation allows lots of well versed players to get together and have a great battle, applying common sense to keep the game moving.

There is no reason why NB could not be implemented as a computer moderated game either … by taking care of the calculations and bookkeeping, without getting in the way.

No reason at all why that wouldnt work. But in order to have the same ease of play, it would need an interface on the computer that did not create an uneccessary bottleneck.

ie – Multiple concurrent users playing the same tabletop game at the same time, with their own interface.

So rather than do things efficiently rules clunk along like Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang. The irrational refusal to dispense with the d6 is one of the culprits. For the life of my I cannot understand how it is more efficient to roll multiple d6s multiple times is efficient.

Technical implementation details once more.

There are only so many ways to roll a dice.

Speculation on my part again …. but the 'problem' that these multi-d6 rules mechanics might be addressing is simple :

Fresh Blood !

New players are often introduced into wargaming these days through the GW channel. They grew up rolling multiple D6's and that is what they expect to find in a gaming set.

The mechanics and nuances of this mechanic is already familiar to them. The more familiar it is – the more likely they are to feel at home when entering a new period.

Thats one theory anyway.

I also have a theory that the great masses out there who are yet to discover miniatures gaming have a couple of things in common :

1) They are already very used to collaborative games using a screen of some sort.
2) They prefer not to have to read.

If NB were to remain popular 28 years from now, whilst retaining its well proven design …. how would you address those 2 observations ?

Quite apart the total lack of game designers to bring a fresh look at the subject is both distressing and disappointing.

No need to be disappointed or distressed. Today, there are plenty of very good, young, enthusiastic game designers working around the clock on ….. games. Including wargames.

Its a fast, agile and multi-billion dollar business.

They are targetting collaborative gamers who have portable devices and internet connections.

They are targetting players who expect to be able to play immediately, learn as they go, and not have to read a rules manual.

For miniatures gaming, this new breed of gamer remains an untapped market.

"Gadgetman" with Stephen Fry had an amazing pool table on it this week. Iirc it was put together by a Canadian University.

A gizmo above the table recognized where every ball was including the cue ball, and then used the observation data to make some calculations.

In this situation it was determining perfect angles of strike to get various results on the table, such as pocketing balls and subsequent placement of the cue ball, but it could just as easily have been working fire or melee tables for model soldiers in proximity to each other.

In 50 years it will be on your i-phone for $20. USD

The technology for table top gaming advances is here.