"What do you guys think about phone app based model war-game?" Topic

Hi all-
I'm living in the Bay Area and so I'm surrounded by programmer types who are always looking for an interesting side project. I have a really killer idea, and was wondering if what the general consensus would be about a war-game that uses a smart phone app to control the action? Basically, both players would have a phone, and you'd log in, and then certain aspects of the game turn, particularly off-board reinforcements and some other issues like time, would be controlled by the app, but things like combat resolution and such would be handled by the players as in a traditional war-game. Would the use of an app be a deal breaker for anyone still, or does it sound cool? Let me know what you think!

No way. Far too much like work.

In a similar vein, I would like an app that handles hidden movement. Most basic idea = GM's tablet would show the actual table with a grid overlay, maybe 1" squares. Icons are available for infantry, tanks, etc, for initial placement. Side 1 takes the tablet and marks movement and special actions (artillery, mortars, etc.) then saves the turn. Then Side 2 takes the tablet and does the same. App overlays the two moves and GM determines if there is anything seen or contacted. This could be simple lines or animated. Repeat the process until contact is made, then figures are placed on the table. Continue until all figs are on the table.

Next step would be to be able to take an overhead photo of any table layout and convert that to a usable display with grid overlay.

Another step would be to allow each side to download the table to their own tablet (even ahead of the event), do moves, then send them to the GM's tablet via WiFi or Bluetooth.

I don't think this would be difficult to do. I considered doing a very basic version in Excel years ago but never pursued it.

Doable?

Thanks for listening.

Sorry, no. Better to stick to paper and pencil (and if you insist make sure that there is an old fashioned back up for when the technology fails).

@Schogun: Take a look at the hidden deployment rules in Hail of Fire (Beta). It does not use an app, but it solved many of the issues I had with most hidden deployment systems in other rules.

link

With its Pay What You Want price you can't go wrong.

The author (RetroBoom) is on TMP.

Since I do not have a smart phone, it wouldn't be of any use for me, but an interesting idea for those who do.

I have no interest. Paper never crashes, loses its wifi connection, declines your credentials, or kicks you off the system.

I would love a app to speeed up carnage and gloryII

The app I have in mind wouldn't involve combat, just things like off board reinforcement arrival times, certain global conditions like weather, maybe unexpected events and command and control. It would also come with handy plug-and-play unit "cards" that could be custom-built to match your own collection of troops. Basically, it would take all the very important but fidgety things things out of the players hands and allow them to focus just on the combat and moving troops aspect, but still allow them to incorporate all the subtle stuff that takes games to the next level.

I was discussing my on-table analog computer idea with my roommate who's a programmer and he was impressed with it, and said that it would be really easy to do in an app. As we discussed it I realized that he was 100% right. The onboard computer was a god start but probably too complicate. But as far as far as a computer program goes it would be a cinch.

No, my phone is not smart enough -- and neither am I.

No interest

I guarantee that the "I don't have a smart phone, I hate it, you're the devil" contingent will be wildly over represented in the responses. Done right, this is another "You don't know you want it until you have it" idea.

So far I've found every computer assist for games more trouble than they were worth.

I'd like a way to plot map movement so I can see when cavalry screens meet each other but I have rarely found computers useful in wargames unless I had lost the dice and needed a way to generate random numbers. I have turned the tank fire results from Operation Warboard and several sets of Quarrie rules into spreadsheets but I am not sure whether this saves any time.

"I don't have a smart phone, I hate it, you're the devil" contingent will be wildly over represented in the responses.

Yup.

Asking people on TMP about this would be like pitching the concept of the automobile to the National Horse and Buggy Preservation Society.

There is a horse and buggy society, do they accept Chariot owners?

I game for the toys and human aspects. Introducing technology could aid the process but I suspect it would detract more.

Well, don't have a smart phone either. I also don't need technology to play games for me, or help run games.

I am fine with old fashioned systems involving dice, paper, maps, pencils& overlays, etc.

But, whatever. If you want to design one, go for it. No one's stopping you.

I think a campaign and hidden movement app would be good, though perhaps phone is a bit small and laptop or tablet would be better for display. Why not do it as a mobile accessible website?

Spent way to much time playing the US Armys computer wargames. To much of the time you stand around going, what just happened?

Agree with Timbo W.

Website is another idea I've had, it might work as well. That might be easier, but I'm interested in what phone apps can do over a server. I have a few really neat ideas that could create entirely new kinds of war-games. I tried to do it over the summer but ran out of time. Some of you guys may not have seen my blog, but here it is. The basic idea is to be able to have players do operational level Napoleonic war-games, but the program could work with any period, any scale

1809in3mm.blogspot.com

The app would allow two players, without paperwork,to play a game quickly with very large OOBs and multiple corps operating at a distance from one another. It would control time in such a way that there would be a delay between what's happening at any given point on the board and what the players-as-generals actually know. In other words, I think I resolved the helicopter general problem. It can be done on the board using my analog computer (those are the colored blocks) but the computer is a bit complicated. The app would essentially run a game clock turn by turn and keep track of what the units the CiC can't see are doing.

I like the idea. If it floats your boat to build it then go tor it, and those who will want it will use it. Trying to get some form of consensus is nice and all via this forum but you should do what makes you happy.

Put down the phone and talk to your for gamers :)

The weak link is the connection between the analog display [table top and models] and the computer/digital interface. If you have to spend too long inputting data manually it defeats the object.

That said, I think there are possible benefits. You'd need a professional programmer who is also a gamer or you are going to be at cross purposes.

Being able to take a photo of the terrain with models in hidden locations, then remove them before play would be a great help, but I'm sure a lot of people to this already.

An app that helps you build your army list and tallies points could be useful for that sort of game, but again I expect they exist already.

It would either be too simple or too expensive Most table top games last a few hours or so, so having a cell phone on full data could be expensive Conversely an attempt to shorten the time woul result probably in a simple game

I don't have a smart phone either. It sounds like a neat idea but wouldn't be very useful to me right now.

I got bids on a grid based hidden movemrnt app. Bids ranged from $35 USD to $70 USD k.

Maybe an app for running solo games with an AI and hidden movement, and maybe combat resolution? – I'd buy that…

@Extra Crispy -- please explain more. Were you developing a hidden movement app?

forwardmarchstudios:

When I was teaching at West Point, I mentored a cadet project to use Palm Pilots (yes, this was a while ago) to automated much of combat resolution in Canvas Eagles. I was trying to get beyond the user interface bottleneck, by letting each player input their moves and decisions but hide the results of shooting from the shooter unless the result would be obvious. The technology wasn't ready. Now I don't have the time to do the programming. The idea is still a good one, I think.

Today we could use the camera on the phone to read bar codes on the bases in order to identify the units. And today, the wireless radios don't cause the hand-held device to run out of power after an hour of use. The technology is now ready.

If you would like to continue the conversation, please contact me at surdu@acm.org.

Buck

@ Buck

I tried once to build a spreadsheet to do that for General Quarters naval rules. The key bit of info is range. In wargames you have to measure this with a tape measure, but you shouldn't really know what it is, because it creates an incentive to game range bands unrealistically.

So I figured if you input the x,y co-ordinates of each ship each move, you could use Pythagoras to solve for the range between any two ships. You then declare fire by each ship against the target, and you are only told of hits and of visible damage such as fires or loss of turrets. Hits that slow a target down or that take out its gunnery control would not be evident and are not reported. Likewise, launches of torpedoes against you were not reported to you as the target player either.

It worked quite well. You could create movement tracks, for example, by charting the co-ordinates after the battle. You did get the feeling though that you were serving the computer while it played the game. If you have 40 ships a side that's a lot of co-ordinates to measure.

I like it. Have used a smart phone for the last six years. Great Idea!

Probably not for me – I'm no Luddite; I think smartphones are great, but I just quite like the feel of throwing dice!

That said, hidden movement, especially on a boardgame style map to generate campaign games would be of interest…

And – and I know this is really daft – I'd quite like a sound effects app! One with just a dozen or so sounds for small arms fire, artillery, tank gun, explosions, air strike, etc. And I bet I'm not alone ;-)

I am a Luddite and my Nokia 310 wouldn't like it but why not go for it and see if it floats. I would imagine that if you made it compatible for games favoured by younger players, and being a grumpy old git I have no idea what those are, it would be quite popular.

Fatman

PS Would it be android tablet compatible? I know lot's of players who have those, even me! ;-P

I'm a developer.
I see all sorts of issues for a phone app.
The main one being dual entry.
You have the phone and you have a table with your toys and terrain on.
These are two totally separate things.

More practical might be a pc based solution with hololens.

Not sure an phone is ideal. The screen is small. Tablets are better as they typicaly have bigger screens and can run off line.

The problem I have seen is typically as mentioned the interface between the board and the machine is unacceptably slow. Now if using a defined say hex board, you could get the machine from a number of photos to recognise the board and the units on it, them hidden movement would be possible as the machine could get a reasonable approximation of what was spotted. Using the position before and after movement based on a few pictures.

Personaly my tech trip would be to by forward projecting hologram models and figures. Superbly painted and indestructible.

Writing software that "recognises" anything based on shape is notoriously difficult.
I was watching "the gadget show" this evening which had examples of a few vr games.
link
One thing they showed was a sand table with a set of cameras and projector attached.
One of the subjects was HoloLens:
YouTube link

I'm glad this is has generated so much interest, both for and against!

(Bear in mind as you read the below is that the theme of my rules, or its goal, is to put them directly in the position of the CiC in a quasi-role-play. The use of time here has the goal of limiting player knowledge to that which an actual CiC would have. An army general only "knows" two things. 1) What he can see and, 2) what he is told. Most modern war-games seek to resolve command and control issues by abstracting these two concepts together in a sort-of post-modern way [Sam Mustafa's games are the height of this art]. What I'm proposing is a way to keep these two kinds of knowledge distinct. I believe that this better captures the uncertainty of command. This is not a traditional set of war-game rules but for die-hards who really want to model the uncertainty of command and control and decision making in the absence of full knowledge.)

The board/app interface is clearly the most difficult issue here. If you check out my blog though, you might see how it is I intend to solve the problem. The app here is for a game that takes place at a grand tactical or operational level, with a large ground scale. We're talking 3mm or 6mm figures here, and each brigade is on a 20mm square base. So, it can take an entire day of game time for a corps to march across the table. Because the scale is so large I need a way for players to have to make decisions not knowing what their subcommands are up to. To do this, the subcommands bank time points at ten or fifteen minute intervals. The further away from the CiC the sub-commander is, the more time can be banked.

The system works in conjunction with written orders, but the orders are made node-to-node, and so the app doesn't have to know what the table looks like. If you look on my blog, you'll see that every village and bridge is labeled. That's so the players can "program" their units. At the beginning of the game you write down the path you want the unit to take and what it will do when it arrives at the goal. Then, as when you begin running through the time points the unit will try to do exactly that (baring any unexpected events or enemy contact of course- friction is involved in all of this).

When enough time has banked (based on the distance it would take for information to be conveyed from the sub to the CiC, traced via road-networks and allowing for things like enemy units and destroyed bridges, etc) then the banked time is resolved all at once- this represents the CiC getting a message or other information on progress from that sub. The opposing player watches what that unit is doing on the table as it moves, in case his own nearby units are affected. If they are, the opposing player then informs the moving player. The moving player then stops and the opposing player has the app run a solution to his own subcommands unit to determine how much progress that commander has made based on how many time points it has built up. Both players then move both units in correspondence with the apps instructions. So, if player one makes a move towards a key town, he very well may find that by the time he arrives the opposing player has already occupied it. Of course, the enemy player may have misread the situation and occupied a town further up the stream, thereby allowing the enemy troops to stream across the bridge and flank his position (I designed these rules specifically to allow for things like this which you never see in traditional war-games).

As far as the app/board relationship goes, I have an elegant solution. The key is to keep the things discreet. What will happen is that you open up the app, let it know what what kind of game you're playing, and then pick your forces. The app will give you pre-selected OOBs, and also "cards", which are pre-selected OOBs at difference command levels. You then match your models up with the cards you have on the app. This will cut down on laborious OOB finagling inside the app. A card might say "Division, 12 line battalions, 3 arty, 2 supply." You then match your troops up with that. An army will be made up of several such cards. Each subcommands will have a certain number of cards underneath him. Of course people can create custom cards as well, but if you bear in mind the size of the figures we're suing here, you'll see it's not as important as is would be with 25mm figures or something. 3mm infantry brigades are fungible items.

Anyway, each sub-commander will then have an entry-control point assigned to him by the app. These will be numbered. The players, on the table, will have two markers for each subcommand, each one numbered according to the number assigned to that subcommand by the app. One of those markers will be placed at a road leaving the table edge. This is the Anchor Marker, and it represents that subcommand's LOC and/supply line (remember that we'll talking miles here, no meters, this is a very large-scale game). Then, you place the Entry Marker somewhere on that LOC further into the table (but with some restrictions, of course).

When the game begins the app will create two different values for each sub-commander. The first one will determine how far away from the entry point the subcommand's troops actually are. The other number will be displayed to the player and tell him how far away his information places the subcommand's troops. These won't necessarily be the same number (fog of war). This number value, say 0-20, will each represent one 10-15 minute period of game time. When the total gets to 0, the player then begins to march his subcommand's troops onto the board- but NOT from the anchor point. He moves them on from the Entry Marker. If the opposing player should march his troops up into the area where the subcommand is marching his troops we can then count backwards from the entry-marker however many time points to determine exactly where the units will interdict each other and fight it out. As far as LOS issues, these are actually not extremely important in these rules, since we're talking about miles and hours of time and not tactical LOS. Scouting roles will be more important for most of the game than physical LOS on the table-top. Where they do become important is when the forces begin to concentrate.

As for that moment, when the two armies do meet up finally and the CiCs are in charge, then the time-function ceases to play the same role, and the "near-game" works as a more traditional war-game, although everything still functions in the same 10-15 minute time hacks. At this point the app will effectively be used to calculate when your force marching reserves will arrive and to control other issues, like the weather.

If I understand you correctly, fms, you are talking about bringing depth to a battlefield engagement by introducing the mechanics of pre-engagement march and manoeuvre and their effect on the subsequent engagement. This also includes the uncertainty of time and location of reinforcement on the engagement in progress.
Am I there?
I am quite interested in a mechanism which allows the players to engage in campaign manoeuvre leading up to the battlefield engagement, and which will give context and depth to the battlefield engagement. This often influenced the balance of power on the battlefield itself and could perhaps be part of the preparations to the on-table contest and covered on a different night.
I think I like where you're going with this.

For something like Harpoon probably a good idea but then again there's a full blown computer game.

What is the benefit of this smartphone based model war-game over full blown computer game?

My take on miniature games is it's the interaction and physical models.
A smart phone app seems like adding a level of complexity/process/equipment requirement than necessary.

I agree Echoco, I deal with computers enough at work, I prefer my gaming to stay analog, thank you.

HairiYetie- exactly. Since the board I'm talking about using is so large scale, these marches really matter. I'm trying to create a truly operational level miniatures game where the players not only fight out the climactic battle but where their decisions, arrived at with imperfect information over the course of a day or days, shape the final conflict. In fact, there might not even be a final battle if the players won't commit. It's possible. With my rules, you could actually recreate a situation like Jena-Auerstadt in its entirety, where the CiC might win or lose one battle in his won sector while completely unaware that ten miles away another, bigger battle is taking place between the bulk of the enemy army and his sub-commander. Obviously this would work for any period in which corps and above were used. Before the Napoleonic era armies operated too tightly for this to work. In the modern era this would really work well, because it allows for tracking multiple units in discreet time periods over distances.

If you check out my blog you can see my thoughts that led me towards this, although I had to call it quits because I started law school and don't have any free time now. Winter break is coming up though….

I am seeing a lot of interesting points about the smart phone itself. A website is an interesting alternative, of course, as well as something pad based. I'll have to talk to my roommate about this a bit, as he's the expert. He also told me that there's a meet up every week of Oakland programmers who meet-up and discuss fun side projects they'd be interested doing, very laid back,and he said that my idea might resonate with them since they're all gamers. So, we'll see what I can do over break.

If you need a digital device to run a part of the game for you, that means the game is too complex.

The whole point of miniature gaming is to have a tactile, analog experience. There could be interesting hybrid analog-digital game formats, but outsourcing the bookkeeping – whether it's combat results, hidden movement, or whatever – is a solution to a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place, and that should be adressed by elegant mechanics in the analog rules.

If you want to import digital technology in miniature wargaming, think more about adding visuals (using small projectors), or sounds to the battlefield. I.e. Use the tech to enhance the miniature table, not the other way around.

The real wold is complex. It would take a very long time in some places in the world to encode all the road sizes, standards and bridge capacities in even a relatively small area say 25 miole square.

The system seems to be aimed at Napolionic players in say europe and proably pre railway. The concepts are definitely history sensitive and not of say use to me as a modern player.

The input load would be enourmouse in a Modern game as marches en-mass are not possible. The artillery will be spread out over miles in depth and width and moveing by definition out of sync with other forces in our games.

Where the reconnisance was sent via small roads would be critical, so all roads would need to be put in place. Even on a real map (look at a UK Ordinace survey map) the work load on the players is massive and could be unattractive.

As a more simplified boargame it may have its attractions but by then its just an umpire, which may have its attractions but it may not be as good as a cunning umpire.

I would really appreciate an app that would allow gamers to input their pre-battle deployment, flank march, reserves, and morale status of their units without their opponent knowing that information. It would allow for a certain amount of fog of war, would avoid cluttering the tabletop with markers and finally an app like that one would facilitate players to concentrate in gaming instead in bureaucratic management.

So, yes, I would be interested in an app that would allow me to do such things with a minimum of effort.

If you need a digital device to run a part of the game for you, that means the game is too complex.

Not necessarily. It might just be a way to hide things that wargames have trouble hiding, such as: Why should you know the current morale and strength of all my units? Why should I even have 100% perfect knowledge of that, myself? It could also be a great way to randomize turn lengths, or movement rates through difficult terrain, or any number of other things that we currently can't do in a war-game, without a double-blind system and Kriegspiel-like referees.

But I do think that it's sort of a culture clash between two worlds, sort of like proposing anti-lock brakes for a horse.

Guys who play with painted miniature figures on tables with miniature terrain probably are the sort of people with the patience and the desire to do things slowly. It took years to collect and paint these armies, and hours to set up the terrain and figures. Everything about that hobby is antiquated and slow. It's not a big deal to ask them to spend some time playing the game with traditional tools like dice or paper.

So why choose just the resolution in a game and automate only that one aspect of the hobby or leave that one bit to a machine, while leaving every other bit to the long, slow, traditional process? I'm tech-friendly in general, but I think I'd find it odd and maybe even jarring to be in the midst of that very old-fashioned world (a miniature table full of hand-painted lead figures), while everybody looks at their phones and iPads all the time. There's something incongruous and unpleasant about that thought.

My gut reaction is: "If you want to play a Napoleonic game on your phones, there are probably a number of better ways to do it, which don't require years of painting armies and hours of setting up a table."

I hear what you guys are saying- this post has definitely generated some interesting discussion, which is very cool. I understand where a lot of you guys are coming from. But to keep it in context, what I'm trying to do is resolve with technology one of the consistently unsolvable problems of traditional war-games, which is the helicopter general, and the simulation of having to make decisions with imperfect information. If you check out the blog, you can see how I've tried to resolve questions of ground scale, distance and time. This might seem like a lot of work for a game, and maybe it is. What I'm proposing is more like a simulation, and it might be more for historians or those who are interested in kriegspiel. But, the final product, if it comes out the way I intend, is not going to be complex. It'll be elegant- if it's frustrating then it's a failure, if you see what I mean. Success would be a product that people never realized they wanted but now can't live without.

Clearly, I've been hanging out with programmers, haha.

But, in my defense, take a look at James Longstreet's memoir from the ACW. Here's a question about it. Does he spend more time talking about battles or maneuver while marching to battles? Probably 50/50 each, right? At least. What I'm trying to do is give players a tool where they can create that experience of march and counter march over distances and have that segue seamlessly into a grand tactical confrontation (which would have rules no more complicated than FPGA or VnB). For instance, instead of forcing players to line up at Gettysburg, what I'm doing would allow the Confederates to actually try to put themselves between the Union Army and DC. No other war-games really allow you do to that.

"It would take a very long time in some places in the world to encode all the road sizes, standards and bridge capacities in even a relatively small area say 25 miole square."

UshCha- I know, I've done that in the military for Intel Prep of the Battle Space. Now that is no fun, I agree. I promise what I'm proposing will be more fun.

what I'm trying to do is resolve with technology one of the consistently unsolvable problems of traditional war-games, which is the helicopter general, and the simulation of having to make decisions with imperfect information.

Would it really, though? In some ways, Yes, you could get rid of some level of knowledge and make the game results a bit more unexpected. But for the most part, I don't think that introducing an App would change much about the helicopter general.

He still knows what all the starting values are, for both sides, since those need to be in the App, put there by somebody at game-start.

He still knows where every unit is, in what terrain, for both sides.

He still knows when and where the reinforcements are expected.

He still knows the sequence of play and who can move how far, in what sequence, before AB or C will happen.

He still micro-manages every unit because he has to move it and put it somewhere, and the App can't do that; only the player can do that.

He still knows what the possible outcomes are for combat, because the App can only produce results that range from X to Y, since that's what it's programmed for. So you're still rolling a dice, you just can't see the result at first. But you still know it's a six-sided dice and not a ten-sided dice, metaphorically speaking.

I've tried a few computer-driven games in the past and been disappointed. For one thing, they took longer to resolve than a traditional game between experienced players using dice and paper. And I didn't see what advantage they offered in return.

I do have an iPhone. But have no desire to use it in a war game.