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.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Doing it by computer also means the engine can be much more complicated - it doesn't matter, as all you see is the results. If the system takes something like an 80s naval sim combat resolution system (modifiers based on firer and target's combined velocity, angle to each other, weather, multiple levels of obscurement, and the precise shape of each unit, then allows for dozens of possible hit results, drills down through multiple levels of hit effects (Roll on Chart A, to find out whether to roll on Chart B, C or D ...), then it can do that, because a human doesn't need to laboriously follow all those steps.

It's not a bad idea - it's just let down by bad marketing and implementation. And the fact that lots of gamers like rolling dice.

Yeah, I agree. It's not a bad idea. People getting upset that the computer aided game can't be played without the computer are really missing the whole point and all of the advantages the computer brings. But, like you say... gamers LIKE rolling dice.

The idea itself isn't bad, it's the applications we've seen so far that are.

Take Ex-Illis as an example. The tabletop was basically limited to moving the models from table section to table section, but even that wasn't required since you then did the exact same thing on the app's digital tabletop. There was pretty much nothing that equated to other miniature games. You didn't measure movement or ranges, everything used the table sections the units were in. The app kept track of all the stats, rules, dice rolls, etc. The models literally weren't required to play bar using the codes to unlock in the app.

At that point, it's not a computer aided miniatures game, it's an Amiibo game without the convenience of an RFID chip.

Online and/or digital integration should enhance and ease the tabletop gaming experience, not wholesale replace it, IMO. YMMV.

 Platuan4th wrote:


At that point, it's not a computer aided miniatures game, it's an Amiibo game without the convenience of an RFID chip.

I think this is a good summary of what it wound up being, really.

And to be fair, that might be a thing that some folks may like, and that's fine. I don't think it was something that the majority of their "target market" wanted, though, as evidenced by its failure.

I think some other points in this thread about needing to hit a few specific things is pretty accurate. While no game has hit all of the marks (e.g. great minis, great setting, great rules, great community, etc.), it does seem that if you can't at least get a few of those, or fail spectacularly at any given one, you're not going to have a very long life or take-up for that game.

In some cases, defunct/out-of-print games will still have a secondary life by the fanbase, but that's not as common anymore outside of clubs and groups of friends. A lot of people want to be able to go to a shop or con and find others playing the same game. Once a game goes out of print, it's a lot harder to find/build groups for those when the only place you can get it is eBay or lucky finds in dusty LGS shelves.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are places for an app at the tabletop, mainly for reference and tracking, but even then, that should be possible to be done by the players.

If your game needs one to manage excess complexity in the resolution engine, to me, that means that the engine is overly complex to begin with, and the computer is covering for bad design. The failure to develop and refine a simple, consistent, and transparent resolution engine suggests that there will be myriad other design issues.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It doesn't at all mean there is "excess" complexity. That makes no sense.

How many people use a computer for their jobs? It would be pretty ridiculous for them to say "hey, I shouldn't have to use a computer for this. If I do, that means the job is too complex and you should make it simpler."

For a board game, 100% it absolutely does, or I wouldn't have written it.

Can you manually iterate through the calculations required for something like EVE in real time? No? How about PUBG? Then the job is too much and requires a computer.

For those jobs that require a computer, again, they are typically real time updates. You can't replicate that pen and paper on a global basis in real time, not at scale, so again, computer required.

But go back to board games, and explain what value a computer adds. I say it's none, and a bandaid for a designer who doesn't know what they are doing.

Well, you're wrong. Just like with anything else, involving a computer allows you to do things you couldn't do otherwise, at least not in a reasonable amount of time. To turn around and say "but then how am I going to do it without the computer?" is completely missing the point. The whole point is to do something you couldn't do otherwise. Maybe you just don't have the imagination to see how that might work. It's probably not easy to incorporate that into a miniatures game without losing what people like about miniatures games. But just because you don't like certain types of games doesn't mean their designers don't know what they're doing.

I’m on the side of involving a computer or mobile device as a necessary part of the game is silly and needless.

As ways of obtaining rules and that? Clearly neither silly nor needless, provided it’s not the only way.

But if it’s such an integral part of your system, what’s the point? If it’s doing my dice rolls for me, that’s not much fun either. If there’s no real measurement or battlefield to speak of, just a choice of squares to occupy, what’s the point in the miniatures, beyond extra expense?

It reminds me of attempts at ‘interactive card games’. I just don’t get them as a concept, I’d far rather take a deck or three down the pub, and play some hands of Magic with my mates.

Now that’s not to say there’s not a happy medium out there. But if there is, I’ve not seen it.

Honestly I think the only best way to integrate computers into tabletop games is Alexa. Ergo instead of having to move away from the "game" and view a screen, you instead have a system that allows itself to monitor the game state on its own or to take verbal instructions (whilst in a crowd of gamers doing other games) so that the computer can keep up and bleep out the answers without taking your eye from the game itself.

I think that way the game remains about the models and the tabletop whlist at the same time uses the computer for back up rather than being just a complex table completer.



Of course the other aspect is if the added complexity actually translates well into the game. If you're adding a lot of complex tables and such are you actually building a game whre people are making complex choices or are you just making something complex and losing the game in the complexity.


Eg you could devise a complex scheme for working out damage from guns based on angle, elevation, wind speed and direction, armour type, angle of incident, ammo type, speed of both objects relative to each other etc.... But if the upshot is that it really makes little difference to how players can and do actually play then it could all be needless complexity.

One thing that could work is to use tablets and cameras and that to create a ‘fog of war’ effect.

I’m thinking a camera above the table, fitting it to the frame. Each player then takes it turns to physically deploy their models, and takes a snap shot, remove the models. Net effect is that each player’s device then has a pic of where the models were deployed.

Initial movement is done in secret. And when a unit would become visible to the opponent, the software identifies that, and it is deployed accordingly.

Dunno if it’d be practical, but could be fun every now and again.

I’d like to see more computer AI for running an opponent; Descent, Mansions of Madness and such board games have an option where the computer acts as a sort of DM, and I would pay to have that carry over to games like 40K where, I could do a Tyranid invasion campaign where I (and maybe some friends) run the imperial defenses and the computer runs the overall campaign (selecting where the next attack on the planet occurs, for example) and via Enhanced Reality shows me where to move its models on the board (or even make it so I don’t have to run out and buy/build/paint the Tyranids at all, I just have to set up my own models).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One thing that could work is to use tablets and cameras and that to create a ‘fog of war’ effect.

I’m thinking a camera above the table, fitting it to the frame. Each player then takes it turns to physically deploy their models, and takes a snap shot, remove the models. Net effect is that each player’s device then has a pic of where the models were deployed.

Initial movement is done in secret. And when a unit would become visible to the opponent, the software identifies that, and it is deployed accordingly.

Dunno if it’d be practical, but could be fun every now and again.

That sounds like a lot of work for a large-scale game, but actually pretty intriguing for something about rival teams of assassins or the like. You'd want to lean pretty heavily into the gimmick.

The big concern for me with app-linked games is longevity. I'll see someone advertising a board game with an app component, and my first thought is always 'can I put this in a box for five years, get a sudden yearning for the game, pull it out again, and play it?'.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's come up with a great solution yet, and maybe the technology isn't there. But there have been some other attempts, like these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe6IeL0ouiw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjcyBR5AmVU

And certainly one could imagine games where you play against an enemy AI being greatly improved by a computer AI instead of card draws and the like.

 Spinner wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One thing that could work is to use tablets and cameras and that to create a ‘fog of war’ effect.

I’m thinking a camera above the table, fitting it to the frame. Each player then takes it turns to physically deploy their models, and takes a snap shot, remove the models. Net effect is that each player’s device then has a pic of where the models were deployed.

Initial movement is done in secret. And when a unit would become visible to the opponent, the software identifies that, and it is deployed accordingly.

Dunno if it’d be practical, but could be fun every now and again.

That sounds like a lot of work for a large-scale game, but actually pretty intriguing for something about rival teams of assassins or the like. You'd want to lean pretty heavily into the gimmick.

The big concern for me with app-linked games is longevity. I'll see someone advertising a board game with an app component, and my first thought is always 'can I put this in a box for five years, get a sudden yearning for the game, pull it out again, and play it?'.

Very fair point.

Perhaps something akin to Inquisitor scale? Literally a handful of models on each side, with the emphasis on proper exploitation of terrain and restricted LoS?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One thing that could work is to use tablets and cameras and that to create a ‘fog of war’ effect.

I’m thinking a camera above the table, fitting it to the frame. Each player then takes it turns to physically deploy their models, and takes a snap shot, remove the models. Net effect is that each player’s device then has a pic of where the models were deployed.

Initial movement is done in secret. And when a unit would become visible to the opponent, the software identifies that, and it is deployed accordingly.

Dunno if it’d be practical, but could be fun every now and again.

Infinity essentially does this with a relatively small group of models. It works pretty well largely because its a pretty small group of models.

The primary problem with "hidden models" in any minis game is that if I'm spending the time painting these things up, I really want them to be seen.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are places for an app at the tabletop, mainly for reference and tracking, but even then, that should be possible to be done by the players.

If your game needs one to manage excess complexity in the resolution engine, to me, that means that the engine is overly complex to begin with, and the computer is covering for bad design. The failure to develop and refine a simple, consistent, and transparent resolution engine suggests that there will be myriad other design issues.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It doesn't at all mean there is "excess" complexity. That makes no sense.

How many people use a computer for their jobs? It would be pretty ridiculous for them to say "hey, I shouldn't have to use a computer for this. If I do, that means the job is too complex and you should make it simpler."

For a board game, 100% it absolutely does, or I wouldn't have written it.

Can you manually iterate through the calculations required for something like EVE in real time? No? How about PUBG? Then the job is too much and requires a computer.

For those jobs that require a computer, again, they are typically real time updates. You can't replicate that pen and paper on a global basis in real time, not at scale, so again, computer required.

But go back to board games, and explain what value a computer adds. I say it's none, and a bandaid for a designer who doesn't know what they are doing.

Well, you're wrong. Just like with anything else, involving a computer allows you to do things you couldn't do otherwise, at least not in a reasonable amount of time. To turn around and say "but then how am I going to do it without the computer?" is completely missing the point. The whole point is to do something you couldn't do otherwise. Maybe you just don't have the imagination to see how that might work. It's probably not easy to incorporate that into a miniatures game without losing what people like about miniatures games. But just because you don't like certain types of games doesn't mean their designers don't know what they're doing.

Within the context of a tabletop miniatures boardgame, nope, I'm absolutely right. It's like you don't understand how to use computers, or what tabletop miniatures board games are about. If you don't understand the fundamental concept, if you've never actually even thought about it, you shouldn't be saying "oh, go use a computer" just because computers exist. Similarly, I doubt you have any actual game design experience, or you'd understand the point about complexity and transparency in algorithms vs opaqueness hidden by "a computer". Simply waving your arms and blathering "computer!" is not making any sort of point.

Now, if you have the imagination to explain how a computer would actually improve a tabletop miniatures wargame in a meaningful way, please share. Otherwise, you should stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WRT the discussion of Fog of War, etc. that is all well-covered by actual computer games, and the computer does a bang-up job as the multiplayer referee - just play Eve or PUBG or any other FFA type game! The computer does the whole thing in real time, and it does it beautifully, with bullet drop or TiDi or whatever.

But it's a computer game, not a tabletop miniatures boardgame.

Until the computer makes the gameplay *better* than pen and paper, it's a non-starter.

Or you could just stop. All you're doing is saying it's bad design to involve computers in miniature games because they should just make a computer game instead. But any miniatures game could be made into a computer game instead. So that's pretty weak reasoning.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I think every major miniature game has four major facets.

1) The miniatures.
2) The fluff.
3) The game.
4) The cost.

You can probably add at least 1 more point, ease of access including distribution and availability, which is where most KS games fail after the initial run and it is keeping a lot of smaller games from taking off. Maelstrom's Edge, as a semi random example.

Oh for sure, there are loads of factors on the "business end" of the project, but I just meant the appeal to the audience, ignoring the busincess acumen (or lack thereof), international monetary markets, marketing, etc. I mean when the random consumer confronts your product in a store and considers buying into it. Sadly we've all bought into games where the company failed as a company - despite the product being good

PS: Regarding the "computer aided" wargames. That's a niche that can stay a niche. I game tabletop miniatures games expressly because I need a break from computers, screens, phones, and tablets. I don't want any of those involved in my games. I'm there to hang out, relax, ignore the phone, and roll dice with friends. I don't give two gaks what a computer/app/tablet would add to the gaming experience.

Now counter to that, I also PC game on occasion (up to and including race simulations with a full wheel/pedal/frame/chassis set-up, etc), but I have no inclination to mix the two. I don't begrudge people keeping PDFs on their phone or using battlescribe or whatever...but I do everything I can to not touch my phone or an electronic device while gaming. It's my break from technology that I enjoy.

 Stormonu wrote:
I’d like to see more computer AI for running an opponent; Descent, Mansions of Madness and such board games have an option where the computer acts as a sort of DM, and I would pay to have that carry over to games like 40K where, I could do a Tyranid invasion campaign where I (and maybe some friends) run the imperial defenses and the computer runs the overall campaign (selecting where the next attack on the planet occurs, for example) and via Enhanced Reality shows me where to move its models on the board (or even make it so I don’t have to run out and buy/build/paint the Tyranids at all, I just have to set up my own models).

But what is the point of the models? Why not just have a video game?

I own the new Mansions of Madness, and while it is fun, every time we fart around setting up the board, passing out cards, moving minis... I ask myself "why?". Everything has to be done through the app (which irritatingly refuses to allow a back button), so the tactile components are pretty pointless and just slow down play.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m on the side of involving a computer or mobile device as a necessary part of the game is silly and needless.

Like the Silver Tower app with its DLC cards and characters.

 Bossk_Hogg wrote:
But what is the point of the models? Why not just have a video game?

This also applies to pure, absolute co-op board games like Robinson Crusoe. It's awful and fiddly AF as a physical board game, but would be awesome as a computer game.

 Overread wrote:
The thing is if you're using an app to make almost all the choices then the risk is that the average person is going to wonder why they are even bothering with models and not just playing a PC or mobile game.

Nintendo gets the idea in that they will sell you a physical model which will then unlock a digital model within their game that you then play with; but you don't need the physical model around all the time to play.

Some companies have had awkward systems where you have to put the model on the tablet or device to play. Thing with those is that you're left with something that isn't all that fun to play with and loses the advantages of each system.

It's not making the choices for you any more than the dice make the choices for you in 40k, though. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Perhaps Ex Illis did it differently, but I'm envisaging something where you tell the app "I've got nine Astra Militarum troopers and a sergeant with a power sword and laspistol fighting fifteen termagants" and it does all the to-hit, to-wound and save rolls and tells you that six gaunts, seven troopers and the sergeant have died. That doesn't take anything away from the players, other than having to physically roll the dice. It could even ask, at each step, if there's any stratagems either player wants to use (and would know which ones each player has available, so if there's none that are appropriate it won't ask).

I'm not sure I want something like that - there's still an appeal in physically picking up dice and rolling them - but I don't think that would make the miniatures and tabletop unnecessary in a game like 40k.

I've played the new Mansions of Madness and it worked well with the app, and some friends have been doing well with the app for Descent 2nd edition. With Descent and Imperial Assault, the appeal seems to be that no-one has to be the Overlord/Imperial player/GM. In Descent and IA, that's a thankless position. You just spend an entire gaming session getting beaten with not much to do about it. At least with Descent 1, where the Ovedrlord won most of the time, the other players could confer, make plans, and at worst commiserate together, but getting beaten all the time as the GM put me off ever playing those games again, until the app came round and now everyone's on the same side of the table.

Nope. If I want to play a miniatures game, I want to convert and paint the models, handle them in a game, make scenery for that game and roll the dice. I have no urge to have a computer thrown in the mix. Computer aided games are a gimmick, and easily killed by a lack of updates, or server storage (as most of the ones like Golem Arcana are mostly online.)

I can p!ay any game I own from 20 years ago, as long as I have the models. I still own 20 year old terrain that works great. Every computer aided game so far has died after a couple of years.

Golem Arcana and Ex-Illis are two examples of why mixing tabletop and virtual just fail hard.

Who does it appeal to? PC/Console camers who'd probably prefer to do everything on the screen and get annoyed with fiddling with these annoying plastic things? Or perhaps Wargamers who're annoyed with messing around with Styluses, software, devices and other gumpf and just want to play with little men and dice/cards!

Not to escape the fact that if the company goes bust/discontinues the line, etc your wargame is essentially useless. Especially if the software becomes unavailable and/or specific hardware (Golem Arcana stylus for example) is hard to get.

And let's not forget Ex-Illis and their code that had to be activated before you could use your physical miniature. Oh feck, Ex-Illis is a game that deserved to fail hard. Here's the lovely trainwreck of a thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/308394.page

Well, certainly Ex-Illis is not a good example of why mixing tabletop and virtual won't work. They did it very badly.

However, even if someone does it really well, I wouldn't expect it to be a huge hit. As has been pointed out, miniature gamers like rolling dice. They also like knowing EXACTLY what the probabilities are so they can run some calculations in their head and pick what has the best chance of success. They don't generally want that fog of war of not knowing exactly what percent chance they have of succeeding at something.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
However, even if someone does it really well, I wouldn't expect it to be a huge hit. As has been pointed out, miniature gamers like rolling dice. They also like knowing EXACTLY what the probabilities are so they can run some calculations in their head and pick what has the best chance of success. They don't generally want that fog of war of not knowing exactly what percent chance they have of succeeding at something.

The closest I've seen of a mechanic that is only doable with a device of some sort is the Das Boot board game where a phone performed the operation of looking through the periscope. But even there, a card deck could work as a suitable alternative. Yes, the phone was a fancy way of doing it, but cards could work just as well.

When it comes down to it, when you come to the point where a device can't be replicated by physical tools, you're probably approaching, if not already passed, the point at which the miniatures become redundant and you may as well stick it all on a device and dispense with all physical product. Hybrid will always fail because, as I tried to hint to above, it will neither appeal to Wargamers or PC Gamers. It'll be at most a nice distraction, but I'd rather play the proper thing on a PC or on a table.

Edit:
As for Fog of War. Well, when it comes to setup, I've been doing it for years - boxes or other large barriers down the table middle is an old setup method that GW used to recommend. Ongoing fog of war will be tricky and if tracked by a device, again, may as well go virtual for everything. You could use blips or some sort of similar mechanic to track ongoing until units get within certain range. But, it wouldn't be the most visually appealing game.

I do not like wargames with an expiration date.

 Easy E wrote:
I do not like wargames with an expiration date.

They all have expiration dates. Even WFHB, and Mage Knight (both considered too-big-to-fail) expired and one day even 40k will be replaced.

Pretty sure 30k is on it's way out, which is a pity

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I do not like wargames with an expiration date.

They all have expiration dates. Even WFHB, and Mage Knight (both considered too-big-to-fail) expired and one day even 40k will be replaced.

Pretty sure 30k is on it's way out, which is a pity

But if you have the rules for those games, you can still play them.

If the game requires software or especially the use of servers, then that game is dead if that software or server is shut down. You cannot play without them and so even if you have the rulebook and all your models, you cannot do anything with them. The developers could make the software open source after they cease support, but if you don't have people in the playerbase who are comfortable supporting said software then the game will still die.

Physical wargames have no expiration date. Current support does not stop a game from being fun, or playable as long as you have enough minis and rules to play it. I can still play my copy of Battlemasters that is nearly 30 years old. In a other 5 years it'll likely be my son's first wargame.

I *think* I have a PDF of a physical copy of the Golem Arcana rules but it looks cumbersome to play without the interface doing the number crunching? Otherwise they are nice minis to use with another ruleset, as even the couple times I played a buddy's copy of the actual game, it was really dry and bland and we spent more time fighting the buggy tech than playing.

Nothing, nothing, will ever replace the awesomeness of having a table full of minis and terrain physically in front of you. Wargaming is all about the physicality.


Back on topic, it's sad to see AT-43 and Confrontation Age of Ragnorok truly die. Ignoring the vitriol of the original Confrontation players, I had a blast. Both these games were really fun to play (as much or moreso than 40k, and I am a huge 40k fan). Some of the rules mechanics added some really fun things, like the Universal Table of Resolution taking the place of tons of charts/spreadsheets, and the decimeter-based range bands for ranged attacks making targets further away increasingly hard to hit.

I will say one of the games I enjoy the most on my iPad is Warhammer Quest. I have a 20-30 lb. box of Warhammer Quest sitting up on my shelf that has been used all of once because I can't get anyone interested in playing. Alternately, I can fire up WQ on my iPad and play for a few hours and thoroughly enjoy myself.

For me, that would be where the appeal of an app-assisted game would be. If I could plug in my actual miniature army vs. a computer controlled opponent, I wouldn't have to worry about organizing a game with someone, I can do it on my own time. That could be something ranging from noting actions (stand & shoot, advance, charge!) to virtually representing the enemy on the board via virtual reality (and yet, still allow me to field the actual minis I've assembled and painted), or even helping calculate attacks, hits and modifiers. The app could also assist with set-up and teardown - another thing that often deters me from getting in a game in that setting up or putting things away is such a chore.

I could see something like Mighty Empires being turned into an app/tabletop combo - with the computer alerting when and where conflict is occurring, and then recalculating the army sizes after the tabletop battles, if any.

Sometimes you might skip the battle, in favor of an off screen Auto Result - when that 100 point expeditionary force runs into the enemy 7,000 point main army. All you would be determining is whether somebody lived to tell the tale....

Basically, the computer handling the campaign aspects, the miniatures being pulled out for the actual battles.

The Auld Grump

I really wanna use my buddy's large Golem Arcana collection (now collecting dust) with Song of Blades and Heroes to make a sort of 10/15mm fantasy Battletech Game, with 15mm troops based as 3-5 man units being "normal" figures, and then the golems having the large, giant, and gargantuan keywords depending on the golem. All fighting amongst 15mm fantasy buildings and terrain.

Part of the lackluster feel of Golem Arcana for me was the lack of a feel of "giant fantasy monstrous warmachines" because other than the bland little guy on the back, not much existed to scale the golems against, as even the terrain was abstractedly scaled, besides being flat.