Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not sure if this concept has really been brought up here before or not. but I'm very curious what people's reception would be of a tabletop game that consolidated all rulebooks and calculations inherent in the game into an easy-to-use electronic device.

See, ever since I started wargaming, I've been working on creating a small-scale tabletop game of my very own (working hard on alpha testing the ruleset with friends that are into wargaming, working on my sculpting and casting ability, spending a lot of time on concept art, and trying my hardest to 'break the mold' for wargaming in general). While I won't give out too many details, I am willing to give away what is potentially the best part of the game (And I have no fear of existing companies plagiarising my idea, as it would lose them quite a bit of their annual profit).

What if a tabletop game existed that got rid of the necessity of releasing new-edition rulebooks or army books, the tedious calculations of rolling dice, or petty disagreements by providing every starting player with an intuitive and easy-to-use touchscreen device? It would contain a searchable copy of the rulebook with a help function, as well as the capability to update through the internet or a USB connection (You would be able to roll back to earlier editions of the game if you wanted to play a round with someone, of course). Using a computer program to do calculations for you would not only be incredibly quick, it would also allow for a much more intricate gameplay system. With a grid-based movement system, all focus could be on tactical input and playing the actual game (as opposed to mostly rolling dice, calculating distances, and moving your units), and it would go considerably quicker than a regular tabletop game. Players would use an ad-hoc connectivity to play against one another, and each player would confirm the other player's actions to avoid disagreements. I think this may have a tremendous effect on players' demeanor towards each other. This would also make army building and creating custom lists a breeze, as you would have every bit of information about customizability directly at your fingertips, and you could save as many army lists as you could fathom in one location.

Could this be the greatest thing to ever happen to wargaming, provided it was well-implemented? Or would you prefer the classic route? Would this make the game feel too much like a videogame? Or perhaps get rid of some of that nostalgia and simple satisfaction you get from doing the calculations yourself? Do you think a mixture of the two would work better? Please let me know what you think; I'm doing the best I can to cater to as much of the wargaming population as I can. And while poll votes are certainly helpful and appreciated, actual feedback as to why you feel the way you do will definitely help me get more of a feel for the wargaming community in general.

There are quite a few computer wargames available, such as Field Of Glory.

There have been computer based rule systems for playing tabletop games. I don't know how many there are around now.

I am not clear if you are suggesting one or the other, or if your idea is to put one of them on to iPad or something.

IMO the best uses for computers are;

To play solo games.
To allow hidden movement.
To handle boring stuff like logistics.

I'm all for something like putting codexs or rule snipets in an iphone ap or something (would probably be the first thing which would make me buy something like an iphone). But if you continue to digitalise everything you may as well just be playing a video game.

http://www.wargames.co.uk/ecw/Main/english.htm

http://computerstrategies.bigpondhosting.com/index.htm

http://www.compassistwargames.com/index.html

My general concept is to combine them both on something akin to the I-Pad, to have both the ruleset and the actual game in one intuitive package.

Also, I'm very curious as to how you achieved computer-based wargaming before? Did you lug your PC to the event, or did they actually have specialized devices as well?

In terms of the actual game, the main idea is to allow for a much more complex and customizable targeting/damage/armor/movement/ability system than dice could possibly give you, while simulaneously making the game play much faster than your average tabletop game. Also, hidden movement is central to the theme of the game. I'm still trying to figure that aspect out completely, but I'm sure a breakthrough will come eventually

EDIT: @Kilkrazy - Thanks for the links; I'll look into existing computerized wargames.

You had to bring your PC.

That was much harder before laptops were invented.

It would have to be well implemented.

This leaves out ALL games companies AND all Software developers AND hardware manufacturers.

As much a pipe dream as herding cats.

In the olden days, hidden movement was done with the aid of a third person, maps and counters, in addition to the game board.

TLDR Version: The sound of rolling dice is music to my ears. If I want to play a video game, I will. Mixing the two could make a happy middle-ground... or it could dull the appeal of both.

The tactile aspect of tabletop wargaming is one of its major draws, for me. There's a point of digitalization whereupon the tabletop and minis become superfluous, but I imagine it's a pretty fuzzy line. If everything is mapped out on-screen, the minis are pointless, obviously. If it's just online rules and codices with a purpose-made calculator... those have been built for other game systems (Codex.pdf, D&D die rollers, HeroBuilder-esque spreadsheets) and most people (including me) opt not to use them, whether to retain the feel of classic gaming or to avoid having to lug a laptop around.

Sure, you can use digital maps and online dice-rollers to play D&D without really changing the game, but it does change the feel. Same as using miniatures with maps drawn on a grid mat, as has become the norm. But by displaying the world only and doing all of the calculations in the background, you get Baldur's Gate - a great series, sure, and built off of D&D, but it feels more like a modern TSR/Black Isle computer/console RPG than a digital skin on D&D.

I like turn-based strategy games, but I don't feel like this is a case of "You got Warhammer in my Heroes of Might and Magic!" "You got HoMM in my Warhammer!" "Hey, these taste great together!" Liking the general type is irrelevant - I still like the two vehicles (PC and tabletop) independently of each other. Liking boxing doesn't mean that you will automatically like both Fight Night and Rock'em Sock'em Robots, nor that you will want to play RSR: The Videogame (with authentic "2-button and a slidey thing" controls (sold separately)).

See Ex Illis as an attempt to commercialized computer-assisted gaming.

My dad played a hyper detailed submarine combat game where players had to use a computer program to calculate the trajectory of torpedoes, currents, and drift. It was boring as hell and was mostly just looking at number readouts.

Extreme example, but wargaming is a tangible hobby. It's really refreshing in this digital age to have something you can touch. We play because we like painting figures and moving them around on the tabletop. If I wanted to play a strategy game digitally, I'd just load up Starcraft II or Dawn of War.

I dunno, maybe I'm just old-fashioned when it comes to this sort of thing.

oadie wrote:TLDR Version: The sound of rolling dice is music to my ears. If I want to play a video game, I will. Mixing the two could make a happy middle-ground... or it could dull the appeal of both.

The tactile aspect of tabletop wargaming is one of its major draws, for me. There's a point of digitalization whereupon the tabletop and minis become superfluous, but I imagine it's a pretty fuzzy line. If everything is mapped out on-screen, the minis are pointless, obviously. If it's just online rules and codices with a purpose-made calculator... those have been built for other game systems (Codex.pdf, D&D die rollers, HeroBuilder-esque spreadsheets) and most people (including me) opt not to use them, whether to retain the feel of classic gaming or to avoid having to lug a laptop around.

Sure, you can use digital maps and online dice-rollers to play D&D without really changing the game, but it does change the feel. Same as using miniatures with maps drawn on a grid mat, as has become the norm. But by displaying the world only and doing all of the calculations in the background, you get Baldur's Gate - a great series, sure, and built off of D&D, but it feels more like a modern TSR/Black Isle computer/console RPG than a digital skin on D&D.

I like turn-based strategy games, but I don't feel like this is a case of "You got Warhammer in my Heroes of Might and Magic!" "You got HoMM in my Warhammer!" "Hey, these taste great together!" Liking the general type is irrelevant - I still like the two vehicles (PC and tabletop) independently of each other. Liking boxing doesn't mean that you will automatically like both Fight Night and Rock'em Sock'em Robots, nor that you will want to play RSR: The Videogame (with authentic "2-button and a slidey thing" controls (sold separately)).

I understand and appreciate your point of view, but I feel that I have to explain my vision a bit further than I had previously.

First of all, one of the most important aspects of the game is that any given map does not exist in digital form, and is highly customizable by both parties involved (in fact, I'm working on a points system that focuses on customizing both your units and your own aspects of the game board). Using the environment to your advantage is just as important as using your units effectively, if not moreso, and it serves to differentiate the game from other wargames (and videogames) in general. The only thing that digitalization will do in this instance is make calculating the damage and accuracy of attacks (based on individual limbs and a complex armor system) much easier, while also allowing for a much more complex system than any other wargame. You also won't have to thumb through a physical book to find special conditions and effects of any of your units' special abilities (or regular abilities, for that matter), and they would be usable with the tap of a stylus. If this helps to put things into perspective at all, this is by no means a massive-scale game. Games will range from having 5-10 units for each side, and will focus greatly on the customization and abilities of each individual character.

The best part about having an actual physical representation, as opposed to being all digital, is that miniatures and terrain are not limited by a computer program. Creative possibilities are boundless, and they also give you so much more pride in your creation than if you just messed around with a bunch of sliders, multiple-choice options, or a color wheel. This is the main reason that I am a tabletop gamer, and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way. Videogames make me feel like I'm being cheated in comparison to the freedom that sculpting tools and a paintbrush give me.

In testing the alpha version of my creation with friends, I've found that each individual unit's turn takes as much as half an hour for a more complex turn. Most of this is excessive amounts of die rolling, and using a pencil and paper far more than you should ever have to. This may sound like a simple case of bad game design (at least for the medium I aim for), but the realization that relegating all of these calculations to a computer would cut the time spent on all of this triviality down to mere seconds without sacrificing any of the depth was definitely a boon. I could redesign the system completely to encompass dice, but being such a small-scale game, would a system simple enough for a few dice rolls to handle even be entertaining to anyone? Simple calculations are great on a large scale, but when you only control five units for the entire game, similar systems don't scale down very well.

I think an app that holds all the rules, and automatically updates for rules changes is a great idea. But this idea is still based on the concept that these rules exist already as books, and can be understood.

I like the fact that books are tactile - I read ebooks, and I have the dodgy GW scanned PDFs on my laptop for reference, but i DO like owning the real thing. We've used PDFs in games before, as it's easier to search.

The thing that worries me most is the attempt to make the rules so much more complex. The idea that a game mechanic can be made so much more complex that it is only possible to practically calculate it through a computer just doesn't appeal to me. Part of the skill in playing this game is knowing how you to use the rules - not just what they ARE, but what you can DO with them. If they are made super-complex, you remove that level of involvement in a game - you don't actually understand what your models are doing when they shoot at someone. This makes it a LOT more like a RTS, and I'm not sure I like the idea.

ArbitorIan wrote:I think an app that holds all the rules, and automatically updates for rules changes is a great idea. But this idea is still based on the concept that these rules exist already as books, and can be understood.

I like the fact that books are tactile - I read ebooks, and I have the dodgy GW scanned PDFs on my laptop for reference, but i DO like owning the real thing. We've used PDFs in games before, as it's easier to search.

The thing that worries me most is the attempt to make the rules so much more complex. The idea that a game mechanic can be made so much more complex that it is only possible to practically calculate it through a computer just doesn't appeal to me. Part of the skill in playing this game is knowing how you to use the rules - not just what they ARE, but what you can DO with them. If they are made super-complex, you remove that level of involvement in a game - you don't actually understand what your models are doing when they shoot at someone. This makes it a LOT more like a RTS, and I'm not sure I like the idea.

I see your point.

The main reason that a computer is necessary is because the value of the numbers present in the game are larger, to allow for a more tangible customization of your units. There are also more variables that are just difficult to calculate with die rolls (such as taking a shot at one body part and instead hitting another), and damage scales a lot depending on certain factors. A good grasp of the ruleset is still integral to your success in the game, and the complexity simply affords you with more tactical options to have at your disposal. It's less on the scale of an RTS, and much more akin to, say, a Strategy RPG. Simplicity is bad on this scale. You're not pitting squads or armies against each other, simply individual units. You have time to think about each character's individual actions. Decisions are very calculated and clear-cut, and you don't really have the option of just unloading all of your best firepower and abilities and hoping to win (I have a very unique mechanic to counter exactly that, but it's very difficult to figure with just pencil and paper).

I also plan on having a fully fleshed-out tutorial for the game that teaches you about the ruleset by using actual situations within the application in progressive, bite-sized chunks. No other tabletop game can really offer a comprehensive tutorial in the same fashion. The rulebook will exist as a complete product (you will be able to read through the entire thing, or simply search it on the fly if you don't quite understand something in particular). I will probably never create an actual physical rulebook, as it saves on costs for both parties involved, unless it proves to be in high demand. I prefer physical copies as well, for no discernable reason, but digital formats are more convenient in every conceivable way. I wouldn't charge for updates once you own a copy, as I'm a gamer first and foremost.

I will probably make a prototype as an application for the I-Phone eventually, just to test the waters at my local tabletop gaming store and see if anyone would be interesting in investing in and playing my game. That's still pretty far out, as I'm in the initial phases of creating the ruleset, and I don't even have any defined miniatures yet (I just use proxies for now). The idea is to be able to publish this myself on a very small scale and see where I can go from there. I just need to perfect it; to make it a game that some people would actually be willing to pay for. It's a shame I don't have anything copyrighted, as I'm skeptical about leaking too many ideas without that sort of protection.

I recently got the new version of "The Game of Life", as I loved the original as a kid and wanted to play it again. The new version comes with a little computer hub which you slot your card in and it gives you money etc.

Everything is done on this hub - "rolling the dice" to see how far you go, keeping track of your money and kids, etc.

It is possibly one of the most boring and souless games I have ever played.

The great thing about tabletop and board games is in the physical rolling of dice, moving of counters and keeping track of things either in your head or on paper. I would much rather roll that vital D20 that must pass in order to kill the final monster than just push a button.

Having said that, I do also enjoy computer games based on the D20 RPG system (or whatever systems they are based on), but they are in a different area of interest, for solo play rather than something which can be enjoyed as a group. Games like WoW have no interest for me - DnD type games, for my money, are best played in person with a group of friends, rather than online.

From the sounds of it, you are trying to tread the thin line between the two systems, bringing the internet style connectivity and computer based play to the game room.

It would be interesting to see what you came up with, but I can say now that you will need to be really careful to tie it all together without losing the essential components of each system that make people enjoy them.

I like the idea of the digital tabletop wargame. All it needs is a large flat digital tabletop that displays 3d troops moving and fighting over terrain. Maybe Real 3d glasses could be used to simulate the depth of the table and terrain features.
You might even be able to zoom the table in to watch the troops fight or climb over walls, or zoom out to fight a map based campaign.

Lottsa possibilities here.

snurl wrote:I like the idea of the digital tabletop wargame. All it needs is a large flat digital tabletop that displays 3d troops moving and fighting over terrain. Maybe Real 3d glasses could be used to simulate the depth of the table and terrain features.
You might even be able to zoom the table in to watch the troops fight or climb over walls, or zoom out to fight a map based campaign.

Lottsa possibilities here.

That just sounds like an advanced version or Rome Total War.

Interactive whiteboards are a cheaper way of doing the same thing as a digital tabletop. Plus they are much larger and you can draw on them

Just mount the projector on the ceiling, and put the board on the table.

When I saw the "New and Improved" D and D 4th edition, I gave up hope for a combination tabletop/ computer game.

No thanks.

If I want to play a video game, why would I want to bring it to a game store and try to sit there with a computer and ignore the other players, while I tool around trying to navigate apps, and try to juggle miniatures and a laptop?

Gaming is a social function. You don't do that with your face stuffed in a laptop.

I have enough minatures games that I don't need gimmicks to sell me.

SilverMK2 wrote:I recently got the new version of "The Game of Life", as I loved the original as a kid and wanted to play it again. The new version comes with a little computer hub which you slot your card in and it gives you money etc.

Everything is done on this hub - "rolling the dice" to see how far you go, keeping track of your money and kids, etc.

It is possibly one of the most boring and souless games I have ever played.

The great thing about tabletop and board games is in the physical rolling of dice, moving of counters and keeping track of things either in your head or on paper. I would much rather roll that vital D20 that must pass in order to kill the final monster than just push a button.

Having said that, I do also enjoy computer games based on the D20 RPG system (or whatever systems they are based on), but they are in a different area of interest, for solo play rather than something which can be enjoyed as a group. Games like WoW have no interest for me - DnD type games, for my money, are best played in person with a group of friends, rather than online.

From the sounds of it, you are trying to tread the thin line between the two systems, bringing the internet style connectivity and computer based play to the game room.

It would be interesting to see what you came up with, but I can say now that you will need to be really careful to tie it all together without losing the essential components of each system that make people enjoy them.

You also have to keep in mind that relegating something so simple to a computer tends to dull the experience quite a bit. When calculations are so complex that using a program saves you an incredible amount of time without sacrificing the end result, this effect isn't quite so apparent. Also keep in mind that I'm not making a digital version of anything, but rather an entirely new game that will be built around the digital aspect from it's inception. This won't cause any defensiveness or disappointment that I've ruined someone's favorite game with a digital update.

I also see what you mean about the physical rolling of dice. It actually gets you involved in producing your next number. I'll try to compensate for this in some way. Again, keep in mind that too much dice rolling is worse than none at all.

snurl wrote:I like the idea of the digital tabletop wargame. All it needs is a large flat digital tabletop that displays 3d troops moving and fighting over terrain. Maybe Real 3d glasses could be used to simulate the depth of the table and terrain features.
You might even be able to zoom the table in to watch the troops fight or climb over walls, or zoom out to fight a map based campaign.

Lottsa possibilities here.

While that would be awesome, that's really not what I had in mind at all. That just sounds like a really expensive videogame with none of the likeable aspects of actual tabletop gaming, aside from actual interaction with people. Again, that would be cool as all hell, but I'm not sure exactly how many people would enjoy full digital wargaming. I'm aiming for something like a middle ground, really. That would also be incredibly expensive to pull off, and I hate programming with a passion.

Grot 6 wrote:When I saw the "New and Improved" D and D 4th edition, I gave up hope for a combination tabletop/ computer game.

No thanks.

If I want to play a video game, why would I want to bring it to a game store and try to sit there with a computer and ignore the other players, while I tool around trying to navigate apps, and try to juggle miniatures and a laptop?

Gaming is a social function. You don't do that with your face stuffed in a laptop.

I have enough minatures games that I don't need gimmicks to sell me.

Once I actually get my feet off the ground, I plan on supplying every starter kit with something akin to a touchscreen phone with a stylus to handle all of the calculations and store all of the rules. While I may have to relegate it to a laptop/iphone app initially, I plan on moving past that once I make enough money. I understand that juggling a laptop and a wargame would be tedious, and probably not very fun, but when you have something that can fit in the palm of your hand with a program that's streamlined to keep your mind on the game itself, that would change the face of the game quite a bit. Also, player interaction is still quite necessary, as each player will have to keep a close eye on all aspects of their opponent's turn, and confirm actions to make them viable.

Chrysaor, no offense, but it sounds like an exercise in bankruptcy. From a business point of view, your costs are going to be enormous, to the point that people may have difficulty actually affording your game. While things such as an iphone or a psp, etc. might go for 200-300 dollars, they are also selling millions of units of them. You will be very lucky to sell 10,000 units. Bigger companies like GW, Battlefront, and Wizards might see upwards of a million customers, but there are a lot of other game manufacturers out there, hundreds in fact, and most of them are lucky to get a couple thousand people playing their game. Hell, Privateer Press is only now starting to become fairly mainstream and more of a direct competitor to the bigger companies, and their estimated market share is still a very small chunk.

Not only that, but people are going to be wary of having to spend that much money for something their not sure their going to like. Your best bet would be to limit it to an iphone/droid app, etc.

Out of curiosity, what scale is this game? Mass battle? Skirmish? Its a game man, not a simulation. If you're designing a skirmish based game, that plays with a few models per side, then it should not be necessary to use a computer. People should be able to handle the calculations themselves and still get through the game in a timely manner. If it's mass battle like saying a 1000 pt game of 40k or larger, then it sounds like it really is an exercise in bad game design. Attempts at hyper-realism have a tendency to blow up in the players faces. Part of good game design is to have a certain level of abstraction that allows the situation to remain believable, but minimize the amount of in-depth analysis necessary to allow it to occur.

I feel part of the problem with this situation though, lies in the name. The power of words is pretty great. If you called this a tabletop wargame, people have a certain set of expectations. If you say video game, people have another set of expectations. If you coin a new term to describe what you're offering, it brings no expectations and allows you to create the expectations that you would like to implement.

Sources:

University Business/Management courses, Game Design and Game Design Theory courses, and personal experience as a game designer

chaos0xomega wrote:Chrysaor, no offense, but it sounds like an exercise in bankruptcy. From a business point of view, your costs are going to be enormous, to the point that people may have difficulty actually affording your game. While things such as an iphone or a psp, etc. might go for 200-300 dollars, they are also selling millions of units of them. You will be very lucky to sell 10,000 units. Bigger companies like GW, Battlefront, and Wizards might see upwards of a million customers, but there are a lot of other game manufacturers out there, hundreds in fact, and most of them are lucky to get a couple thousand people playing their game. Hell, Privateer Press is only now starting to become fairly mainstream and more of a direct competitor to the bigger companies, and their estimated market share is still a very small chunk.

I had thought of that problem, yes. Keep in mind that this will not even be published in any form for years, and the initial published product will probably use a freeware program that runs on an I-Pod Touch or a Laptop (Thankfully, they can connect to one another), until I can afford such an investment. By that point, touchscreen technology will be incredibly common, and will more than likely go down in price considerably. I figure that, over time, the production and publishing of rulebooks and other supplements will cost me (as well as the consumer) far more money than if I went digital. Surely, it would make me less money as well, but that doesn't really bother me.

Not only that, but people are going to be wary of having to spend that much money for something their not sure their going to like. Your best bet would be to limit it to an iphone/droid app, etc.

It will be a large initial investment, yes, but I hope to counteract this by cutting down on price gouging as much as possible (As we all know that GW is incredibly guilty of this) and providing players with much more value for their money. Since this is a very small-scale game, it will not require much investment beyond the initial payment. I will be casting and producing this all myself on a very small scale (at least in the initial stages, which will cut labor costs completely), and I will make an active effort to introduce as many people as I possibly can to my game at local gaming venues. Hopefully interest in the game will spread by word of mouth (and eventually, through internet forums and distribution) enough to sustain it. This is not a profit scheme, it is an attempt to introduce an enjoyable game to the public. Is this entirely too idealistic? Of course, but that's just the way that I am. If it ends in bankruptcy, I still won't see my time as wasted.

Out of curiosity, what scale is this game? Mass battle? Skirmish? Its a game man, not a simulation. If you're designing a skirmish based game, that plays with a few models per side, then it should not be necessary to use a computer. People should be able to handle the calculations themselves and still get through the game in a timely manner. If it's mass battle like saying a 1000 pt game of 40k or larger, then it sounds like it really is an exercise in bad game design. Attempts at hyper-realism have a tendency to blow up in the players faces. Part of good game design is to have a certain level of abstraction that allows the situation to remain believable, but minimize the amount of in-depth analysis necessary to allow it to occur.

This is definitely a skirmish-scale game. The in-depth calculations required are not a stab at making a completely realistic simulation. Far from it. They simply afford you with more tactical options, and a much more balanced game in general. They also allow you much more control over the shaping of your units, and on a small scale, that's very important. I've made an active effort to weed out every mechanic that is simply for the sake of realism (aside from a few key points), and anything that doesn't afford you with a viable tactical option, but that still hasn't done much because of the very foundation of the game itself.

This is an attempt to make a skirmish game just as entertaining as a full-scale battle, instead of a quick distraction that serves as satiation for the real thing. When you make a small-scale game just as simplistic as a large-scale one, it makes people feel like they're being cheated out of a true gaming experience, and are instead just playing 'the quick and easy version'. I don't want that at all. I want people to feel like this is a perfectly acceptable substitute for a large-scale wargame, without taking just as long to complete. If the calculations were handled by a computer of some sort, you would be able to knock out a game in half an hour to an hour, instead of the six to twelve hours that massive scale games can sometimes take to complete. This would fit cleanly into anyone's available gaming schedule, and coming back for round two is always a viable option to extend the amount of time you want to spend playing the game. If I simplified the calculations too much, my game would simply become an option only when people had a very limited amount of time to play a tabletop game. With calculations this complex, it makes every decision, every move, and every victory that much more fulfilling. Ochestrating your tactics is a lot more enjoyable when you actually have a lot of options, and you manage to string those options together in such a way that it ends in victory for you.

I feel part of the problem with this situation though, lies in the name. The power of words is pretty great. If you called this a tabletop wargame, people have a certain set of expectations. If you say video game, people have another set of expectations. If you coin a new term to describe what you're offering, it brings no expectations and allows you to create the expectations that you would like to implement.

That is an excellent idea.

I greatly appreciate your constructive criticism. It's great to have college-level thoughts on the subject.

Kilkrazy wrote:You had to bring your PC.

That was much harder before laptops were invented.

i'm with you there. all those vacuum tubes were a pain in the butt to carry around for something that is in essence empty!

Nurglitch wrote:See Ex Illis as an attempt to commercialized computer-assisted gaming.

it's more like miniature-assisted computer gaming from whats been posted by the madnes. the only thing that is optional are the miniatures themselves, lol. you can't play without the code on the box since you have to activate your minis online... you can't play without internet access, their proprietary program, and equipment to run it (iphone, pc, mac) since there are no physical rulebooks... about the only thing you *can* skip are the physical minis and dice.

(disregard this post - computer at work decided to replace a lengthy and hard-thought reply with text I never quoted )

I think everything about Wargaming is fine as it is. However, having online Rulebooks would be great. It allows for the rules to be easy to update, taking out lots of drama that comes with having solid rulebooks that need to be updated one at a time with army updates and game updates.

Paperless gaming?

I'm still waiting for the 'paperless' office they promised us 30 years ago. Where emails didn't need to be printed out and filed as hardcopy.

Part of the fun of wargaming for me comes from collecting. Collecting an army and also collecting the army books and other materials. I still have my army books going back to the 2nd edition and I still pull em out to look through sometimes for fun.

I can see the convenience of having everything you need on your iPad but for me personally, I'd rather have books to flip through and army lists to print out (and forget to bring)

It might be convenient if one has an ipad, but not all of us wish to be iClones, slaves to the whim of S.Jobs.

(I may be a windows user, but my PC is a frankenstein, my mp3 player is a Creative model, my monitor a samsung (as is my laser printer) and they all work with my Billion Router/modem.

I did have an ipod at one stage, and getting it to work, even with itunes was patchy at best. I don't relish the idea of giving apple any more money.