"Imagining Computer-Assisted Games" Topic

Folks:

I have been thinking about different examples of computer-assisted games which I have played, developed, heard mention of, and suggested here on this forum and elsewhere.

If I had to summarize what I have learned, it is this:

(1) Most computer-assisted systems which are popular place a lot of emphasis on record-keeping and table look-ups (Carnage & Glory, Shipbase III, Computer Startegies Ltd. Games, etc.). These systems have been the same PC-based type of game for many years, although they have evolved and improved during that time.

(2) People miss rolling dice if the computer does it for them, sometimes to the extent that they refuse to play these games. (This does, however, severely limit the accuracy of the calculations which the games can perform.)

(3) Computer-assisted systems often require each player to act in turn, unit-by-unit. This can have a bottleneck effect, especially in large multi-player games. Some systems avoid this by giving each player a device, etc., but this approach limits what the system can otherwise do (for technical reasons), and often requires networking technology which makes the game difficult or impossible to release commercially or publically. With networked games (those running on a server with a live connection) these problems could potentially be solved.

(4) Some people would like to see technology brought to bear which (at least to me) seems to be practically impossible, involving scanners, artificial intelligence, laser range-finding devices, visual recognition, and other ideas which are nice but likely won't happen anytime soon, given that most computer-assisted wargames developers are one-man shops working from a love of the hobby rather than for profit. Their ability to engineer custom technology hardware for wargaming purposes is slight.

Given this, we are starting to see some new ideas of what computer-assisted games could do, and I am interested to hear what kind of systems miniatures wargamers would most like to see. I know many people are looking at apps as a way of developing new wargaming systems, which could potentially solve some of the difficulties mentioned above. It would be nice if this could be done without losing the good things we see in games like Carnage & Glory and Shipbase III, of course.

So, I ask the question: "If you could imagine an historical miniatures game which was played using handheld devices (etc.) what would the technology be doing for the game?"

(If you are intereasted to see my views on the subject, I have written some things which can be found on wargamingmachines.org)

Kind regards,

A. Gregory

Hmm. So far, the effort has been to computerize dice-rolling and record-keeping. But I like dice-rolling, and I'm not sure there's any net improvement in me having to enter all actions into a computer over me having to maintain a record in some other manner.

But a computerized opponent for solo play would be worth substantial expense and inconvenience otherwise.

NB. computerized die-rolling should not affect accuracy of calculations, but may affect granularity. But how much granularity do we need? The common run of non-computer moderated games already provides the tabletop general with more information than his historical counterpart usually has. Hiding the information from the wargamer may have value, but also might not be appreciated.

I like the idea of computer-assisted games being used for enhancing solo play.

I have been chewing on the problem of computerized dice-rolling vs. real dice rolling, because I can easily see how a computer could simply calculate the odds and modifiers, and save you the work of doing the lookups, but not generate the results: "You will hit your target on a 3 or better on 1 d6" instead of "You miss your target"). The problem is the dice themselves: the number of possible results with d6s is pretty limiting, even if you start doing things like saving rolls and re-rolls, which a lot of games do.

It is hard to get a 4.5% chance of something happening (for example), which for a computerized game is as easy as any other probability. Whether this granularity matters is up to what the game is designed to do, I suppose, so it may be significant or it may not. And you can always use percentile dice, when it comes to that. The sheer number of rolls, re-rolls, and saving throws always puts me off, but that is likely a matter of personal taste.

As for hiding information, that is a real strength in my opinion, but you are right – a lot of gamers want to "see" exactly what is happening with the mechanics.

I used some. The good stuff:
They can swiftly take in account a huge lot of things, fatigue, ammunitions
( one of the most overlooked thing in games) etc.
But
The more clicks the longer it takes. And if one side cliks everything the others are idfle bored. Of course if you can manage effortlessly simple calculations, computer entering data, cliks etc, will be a waste of time.

It could be good for events.
Hidden troops ( the post 1900 empty battlefield).
Maybe with pictures of the field, aiding in FOG and orders, I.A. Troops initiative.
Replacing an umpire.

To your 3rd pt.

Most rules systems I have played create the bottle neck. I remember a huge napoleonic game I played at CoastCon, prior to Bayou Wars. I actually played a another game waiting for my turn. Non computer games can slow everything down with numerous charts, consulting rulebooks, etc.

The larger the game, the more simple the rules should be to keep the game from slowing down.

There is a set of rules used by gamers at Bayou Wars. I like them. Simple, few dice roles. very few charts. The best part is once contact is made you dice for the units starting morale. Leads to fun and interesting games.