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.

The news about Golem Arcana http://www.beastsofwar.com/golem-arcana/golem-arcana-production-announces-harebrained-schemes/ may or may not have shocked the reader, they definitely validated me when a couple of years ago I said it is not a game I am expecting to succeed.

But it opens the discussion about hybrids in our industry, obviously with Golem Arcana we have two cases were a tabletop game were the mechanics are on the tablet and the physical pieces do nothing really that failed and we have plenty of examples were apps are essentially an interactive play sheet, scoreboard, character sheet extr, most of these succeed, but are nothing ore than a digital substitute of a paper component plus markers, I have heard Xcom is good with the app, I have my reservations, but have not yet played that boardgame, do you see, envision or have some ideas about a more meaningful Hybrid games?

"From the creators of" something famous... this is born from time to time. "Wasteland" for PC comes to mind. Maybe its inbreeding, I don't know, not enough fresh material.

I watched the introductory video. It just doesn't meld together - the tablet and the miniatures board. Instead of providing extra possibility the GA techinical solution seems to limit interaction. Some people accuse Dust Tactics of being too "simple", too shallow. It looks like the case here. And from the point of pure design - I can't justify what I call "splitting attention" of the player - not in this case.

Simplicity seems to be the selling point but it is the wrong kind of simplicity. To a wargamer the stylus looks like attaching a crutch to the person who can walk without issues. If it is a way to lure smartphone users into tabletop gaming - I can see it was not the goal here (and a pure digital game would have done it better).

I have a raw design of an app for pen and paper RPG albeit it is like having a sketch of a spaceship - nothing to announce and I don't wanna rant. But I suggest app developers look at narrative pen and paper for inspiration. Some digital solutions might do good there.

The advantage of a computer is that it is capable of quickly and covertly performing game mechanics and flawlessly memorising the results. A good hybrid game would likely take advantage of these abilities to refine the simulation of a tabletop game.

For example, I think you could make Warhammer Fantasy Battle into a good hybrid wargame by using the tabletop to handle movement and the computer to handle combat. I'm imagining a tablet with a bunch of icons for all the units, and you just drag your units onto theirs to mark their targets during the shooting phase, and drag your units onto theirs and choose an orientation when you charge, then let the computer calculate casualties and morale.

The thing is, most gamers like rolling dice (or playing cards). I could see it working if the game had loads and loads of fiddly modifiers, and it did all the calculation and gave a target number for me to roll, but letting it do the actual "rolling" just doesn't feel right, I think.

It's things like that that explain why Warhammer uses a hit-wound-save method - the owner of the model gets the last chance to save it. Infinity works the same way. The armour roll is entirely equivalent to the shooter making a normal roll against his weapon's Damage using the (negative of) the Armour as a modifier, but instead it's turned upside down and given to the target player to roll.

Personally for me the issue was two fold. They had a unique and interesting idea but failed to expand it into a target market that would truly allow it to flourish. They had a unique gimmick but with the stylus, how the map and game is setup it has trouble competing with standard fair skirmish games. It doesn't speed up the game, compared to a well designed skirmish game, but does allow for less book keeping but doesn't take advantage of that. It doesn't really speed up game play or simplify it, so it doesn't bring something really new. The other issue was the models were ok, not spectacular and were limited. If they made them slightly more compatible with others and even went the unpainted route they could have gotten a bit further.

It was for all those reasons I never jumped into it. I wanted too but the piece I was waiting for, is the piece they really should have focused on and that was "networked play".

They have a great way to bring miniatures gaming to remote people as well as providing a method for players across the world to play each other. No need to argue or worry about dice rolls. Using the map layout setup in the tablet represented by the table, positioning tracked which can be broadcasted to a remote player and allow players to play games who may not have otherwise. Not only for people who don't have play groups, but a good method to do tournaments and create a method for players to have a chance to play more frequently. I was looking forward to being able to play with my children as a introduction into miniatures gaming without having to fully explain rules, have them roll and give them visual explanations for what can be intuitive in a tablet interface. It touched on the fringe but didn't go into it and that is why ultimately why it failed. Once the shiny wears off of "oooh a tablet and pen" it didn't expedite or enhance what could be done without the interface.

 AlexHolker wrote:
The advantage of a computer is that it is capable of quickly and covertly performing game mechanics and flawlessly memorising the results. A good hybrid game would likely take advantage of these abilities to refine the simulation of a tabletop game.

For example, I think you could make Warhammer Fantasy Battle into a good hybrid wargame by using the tabletop to handle movement and the computer to handle combat. I'm imagining a tablet with a bunch of icons for all the units, and you just drag your units onto theirs to mark their targets during the shooting phase, and drag your units onto theirs and choose an orientation when you charge, then let the computer calculate casualties and morale.

I played a game like that many years ago. It was a prototype Napoleonic wargame. The disdvantage was that typing all the variables into the computer to get the combat result used up a lot of time.

A touch screen interface would be better at doing it, but basically players are easily capable of handling combat resolution, either by a simple mechanism or a more complex one if they prefer (lots of modifiers...*) There are many examples of these in the history of wargames. In my view, the computer based combat resolution is a solution desperately looking for a problem.

The genuine problems the computer/smartphone can help solve are things like hidden movement, communications within and between armies, especially in campaigns, and the drudgery of logistics if it is to be included..

There are some interesting examples of hybrid games on console, such as Disney Infinity. These are aimed at a much younger market, though.

For me it failed because there was no need for the boardgame component, the same reasons the previous attempt (ex illis?) failed, networked play would reinforce more the question "why we need the tabletop components?"

So far the "successful" merges are for digitally replacing parts of the game, score sheets, character rosters, timers and so on.

There are some attempt to put the "AI" of a game in app for coop games, in tablets though I am not sure how successful that will be over having it simply on a card, if it recites the card its pointless if it does true AI it will be tricky, if it needs too much input it moves it in the "why its not pure digital?" territory.

My question centers on what you expect/ hope/ envision as a successful integration of app into wargames/ boardgames.

Integration has to serve a genuine need or create a genuine benefit. for the player

Otherwise the danger is that the app is created for sake of having an app, because apps are cool and every company has to have one these days.

That is what I am trying to explore here, is there a genuine need or benefit for having an app, so far I have seen almost none.

Beyond score sheets which is a genuine good advantage to give to buyers to have after the score sheets of the game have been depleted, especially if they have random variants, as long as things do not need to be placed on them.

And maybe for character sheets if the game has "campaign mode"

But beyond these I cannot see much reason for an app and I am deeply curious if I miss something.

From what I've gathered, the X-Com boardgame makes good use of the associated tablet app; certain phases of the turn have timed segments for each player role. The app times these, provides the information required to carry out the steps and presents the conclusions at the end.

I'm missing details as I've never played the game, but I've seen a few games locally and heard podcasts where it's been discussed and not heard many complaints. BGG might be able to explain better.

Another one where it might be useful is Betrayal at House on the Hill. There, the initial phase of tha game has you explore the house until a number of Omens have been revealed. Then, the player who revealed the triggering Omen looks up one book to find out what their mission is, while everyone else looks up another book to find out what they should do. An app - especially if you could link multiple devices so you can tell it which one is the triggering player - could manage all that a bit more easily, and make it easier to add more quests, if need be.

The guys on D6 Generation rave about Lone Wolf Development's player and GM tools for RPGs, and those sound like they could be useful for character, campaign and setting tracking. Not quite the scope of this thread, though.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
For me it failed because there was no need for the boardgame component, the same reasons the previous attempt (ex illis?) failed, networked play would reinforce more the question "why we need the tabletop components?"

That comes down game mechanics. Overall the ending result was, "it didn't bring anything new or take advantage of what it could offer" and that is why failed.

Network play doesn't necessarily bring up the question of "why do we need the tabletop components" because the network play gets rid of 'fiddly' parts. The advantage of network play, I'll explain using another method, Play by Email/Mail. Way back in the day when I played Battletech and Tradwars (Full Thrust) our initial play group separated. Battletech made play by mail easier because it has numbered hexes on the game boards but it was still fiddly. There were sometimes debates on where places where, and there wasn't a verification system for orders. A proper game with map, miniatures, and app component could register those getting rid of that while providing other game areas.

There is also another advantage of network play for tournaments (mainly because no one wants to pass around a tablet, so network play allows this). By having a graphical representation in digital form of the game board, it eliminates certain discussions and arguments with many things. For example line of sight is no longer an issue. The game properly computes out location, volume based on terrain. This also provides a means for fog of war, allowing hidden movement, troops not becoming identified until actual line of sight and other neat things.

Yes that can all be done without tabletop components. But that is always been that way, why do people play tabletop miniatures vs real time strategy games? It is simple we like the social interaction, we like the miniatures, we like to assemble and paint them and we like to hold them and play with them. It really isn't a disagreement in what you said but more of an example of how they failed to expand on it more.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
That is what I am trying to explore here, is there a genuine need or benefit for having an app, so far I have seen almost none.

There could be a need and benefit. It is just no one has done it properly and taken advantage created a properly augmented reality type interface to work within an app environment. Utilizing augmented reality you could eliminate the whole need to buy $300-1000 worth of terrain. Although I don't believe that is where it will benefit miniatures gaming though. There needs to be a system where a table can represent all the points in a 3d/app environment and figures with a type of RFID contains all the information and tracks properly. It would eliminate LoS issues, allow blind/hidden movement, allow new mechanics like "units swapping position (possession)", off board artillery and bombardment without the need for tokens and rolling and more.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
From what I've gathered, the X-Com boardgame makes good use of the associated tablet app; certain phases of the turn have timed segments for each player role. The app times these, provides the information required to carry out the steps and presents the conclusions at the end.

For the most part it does take advantage of the app and provide something. It means someone else doesn't have to organize and run things which is nice. It also helps move the game along.

 Dark Severance wrote:

Yes that can all be done without tabletop components. But that is always been that way, why do people play tabletop miniatures vs real time strategy games? It is simple we like the social interaction, we like the miniatures, we like to assemble and paint them and we like to hold them and play with them. It really isn't a disagreement in what you said but more of an example of how they failed to expand on it more.

Agreed but ex illis and this are digital games really who are dragged down by having physical components who do not enhance the experience,

I don't know what "ex illis" is but I can still agree. That was definitely the main thing that hurt Golem Arcana. I know they said they had plans to do more, they just unfortunately either didn't have the capital or ability too or were taking too long to bring those changes to light. They had the groundwork, they just didn't expand that.

Does anyone know if anyone on the Golem Arcana team came from a miniatures gaming or board gaming background?

Ex illis was the first attempt at hybrid it was roughly the same but did not have a specialized IO device, just a plain touch or mouse and keyboard input.

You need to be mad or a big company like Sony to be able to sell games that rely on a specialist input device like an arcade stick, Guitar Hero axe, dance mat, etc.

In these days of nearly universal smartphones and tablets, it makes much more sense to put the software part of your game on that platform, and your question is whether to do all of iOS, Android and WIndows for Phones.

To get back to the topic, I was trying to think of a use for a networked app. In some historical games the player(s) must issue some kind of orders to units. This might be done by issuing standard order chits, or by actually writing orders (Benson’s division to attack north at 1 o’clock, supported by 33rd field artillery.)

These orders then need to be activated. There is usually a time delay involved in this, and a chance the orders never reach their destination or are misunderstood or ignored.

In a two player game without an umpire you usually would either move a little courier across the battlefield, or perhaps just dice for the success of sending the order.

In an umpired game, you usually would give the order to the umpire, and he would do some secret magic and then deliver it as appropriate. Umpired games are usually multi-player, and often multi-map.

Right, so, having laid out the background, the app would let the players do the following:

Select the type of orders that can be given (chits or short texts.)
If text, type in the text.
Set limits on the randomisation of the success of issuing the orders, for the time taken and success of their being accepted. It would be great to include modifiers for commander quality.
Set the target commander for each order. This would include setting up target groups to allow orders to be given to the whole army. It would include the phone number for each commander, which could be your own phone if you are playing a two-player game.

To use in game, the players would first set up all the parameters needed, then during the orders phase, issue their orders. The app then delivers them, or not, after an appropriate delay.

I was thinking last night of what could be possible...

Take, for example a Napoleonic-era game, or earlier; Ancients, say. A lot of of those rules have quite complex methods of involving multiple players, blind control, umpires, etc. If you had an app running all of that, it could look after command and control (for example, if you want to change a unit's orders, you enter the change into the app; it will calculate how many turns it'll take your AdC to get from the general staff to the regimental colonel, based on distance, terrain, weather, etc. I could also take into account random events - he falls off his horse, gets ambushed by enemy skirmishers, gets lost, goes to the wrong regiment, whatever. Rather than having to work all of this out and roll on a million charts, the player just issues the order and ... waits until the app says "OK, the unit is now doing ... whatever". The weather effects could be pre-set, random, based on actual historical events or even based on what the weather is actually like now, if it's linked to a public online weather API!

You could also add some look and feel elements - orders displayed on bits of parchment. If the rider fell off his horse, add some mud stains, if it's raining, make the paper look wet. That could also tie into gameplay. If you'replaying a multiplayer game, if one of your subordinate players gets a note with bits obscured, what does he do? ignore it? interpret the legible bits as he sees fit? send back for confirmation?

For blind-control games, it could display a limited map, depending on which commanders had sent out scouts, and who had reported back - like in Command & Conquer.


... OK, so basically what Kilkrazy wrote.

I'm probably talking about something different with the computer integratio/hybrid game, but are there any out there that could basically be the opposing force for games. I mean there are plenty of people asking (especially in Mantic kickstarters) for some sort of AI so a person can play a game solo. To me that could work out with the integrated games better. If the computer is capable of making random forces at different point levels, there being 5-6 terrain elements that are always taken (a hill, a stream, a couple buildings), then there are set objectives that the computer can try and capture/defend while the player does the opposite. Likewise there could easily be a wipe out scenario where the player and computer just try to wipe each other out. The integration comes from the mapping of the tabletop and all combat resolution can be calculated from the computer aspect of the game, the table would be less cluttered as the tablet or device stores all the info on units being disorganized, routed or any lasting effects. This would allow more immersion into the tabletop aspect of the game itself as there would be more focus on the models and less on all the dice, chits and markers strewn about. What this would require is for the player to build 2 physical armies though. One for himself and one for the computer "pool", That way he can input into the available models that the AI can choose it's army from. I think this happens more often than not in a gaming situation where people collect multiple armies so they can have an opposing force to have variety, but to also have a second army available to teach friends how to play and introduce them to the game. This would let them also always have a competitor to play against. We have all seen plenty of "good" games die because there is just not enough players to ever find a game with someone. Here you could always open up the app, say 100pts (500, 1000,1million however the system would calculate) and then pull the models off the shelf and set the terrain according to the terrain application set up. Also It would allow you to walk away from the game when the spouse says it's time to do XYZ or you need to go to work and you can bring up your saved game from 3 weeks ago and pull up the data from where you left off, something that is always contentious with actual other players.

Sorry this could have been well off the topic of what you all were debating, I read most of the post, but I'm half asleep and the idea just hit me.

IMO, consider something like Skylanders / Infinity / Amiibo / Dimensions. Those are hybrid games, primarily virtual for all mechanics and stats, but with physical tokens that unlock content.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of these hybrid games, simply due to the sheer amount of additional physical clutter that they add to an otherwise purely-virtual game.

I never considered these hybrids, the "physical" aspect is more a removable microtransaction code.

I guess when people talk about using tech to help calculate combat res I get a little sceptical. If there’s so many modifiers that players can’t easily resolve combat, then how are players expected to assess the merits of that combat before it starts. What are players using to judge the merits of a combat if the system is too complex for people to figure out without using an app?

One thing that’s often lost when talking about table top games is the appeal of actually knowing how all the pieces fit together. A computer game might tell me not to expose my unit to a flank attack, but how do I know how serious that is? If I don’t know what the mod is, and how it compares to other mods like unit quality or fatigue, I don’t know the mod, then how can I judge whether it’s worth risking a flank attack or not? The recent X-Com games get a big cheer from me for doing this, but there aren’t many others.

But in wargames, because the players themselves do everything, well then the players themselves know how everything works. I know what modifier that flank attack gives, how it impacts fighting and combat res, so I can make some kind of judgement about whether it’s worth risking a flank attack. So the risk of adding computer support to tabletop games means players might lose that knowledge of the rules, stop understanding exactly what is and isn’t important in a combat.

I’m not saying that tech is necessarily bad. I just think it needs to be added with a decent understanding of what’s being given up.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I never considered these hybrids, the "physical" aspect is more a removable microtransaction code.

Yeah, it’s a microtransaction with a miniature added. That makes no sense in terms of game design, but in terms of marketing it was very clever.

Oh I do not disagree, I have bought hulkbuster and samus purely for display, its a clever marketing and it even attracts customers who do not care for the game.

On hibreeds I think calculating stuff might be the wrong way to go.

Disney Infinity is aimed at fairly young children who greatly enjoy the collecting and the 'doll' aspect of the game.

This 'doll' enjoyment can last into adult life. What are wargame models except sophisticated miniature dolls, after all?

In terms of computer modelling of combat, I take Sebsters point that players like to know the modifiers in order to make tactical decisions. However, real commanders didn't know that being attacked on the flank gave the enemy a +1 to their dice roll. They simply knew it was a bad idea to allow yourself to be attacked on the flank, and tried to avoid it, and to do it the other side.

From this angle, devolving the combat resolution to the computer relieves the players of the minutiae of running the game on a mechanical level, and allows them to concentrate on command decisions.

If your command decision is to risk your flank, wittingly or not, then you go ahead and do it and take the consequences.

The Battle of Austerlitz comes to mind, where Napoleon being outnumbered, deliberately weakened his right flank to lure the Allied army into committing a major part of its force there. This flanking movement weakened the Allied centre. Napoleon blocked the Allied flank march with a new corps brought up by forced marching, and launched a major assault on the enemy's centre. This attack captured the Platzen Heights that dominated the whole position. From here Napoleon was able to roll up both wings of the Allied armies by flanking them from within the centre. It would have gone the other way if the French III corps (Davout) had not been able to hold the Allied army off the French flank.

Everyone involved was aware of the advantages and disadvantages of flank manoeuvres and made their decisions without the benefit of knowing the precise die roll modifiers that applied.

To put it differently, there is never a disadvantage of attacking an enemy on their flank, unless they have anticipated you might do that and set up a trap for you.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Ex illis was the first attempt at hybrid it was roughly the same but did not have a specialized IO device, just a plain touch or mouse and keyboard input.

I'm not sure if you mean that as a negative but the lack of a specialized IO device was about the only thing that Ex Illis did half right (unfortunately, it was iOS/pc only iirc only with no android equivalent so only half right). The rest of their efforts (mediocre minis, aggressively smug online attitude of their reps even when caught lying, insulting exisiting gamers, little to no timely response on the issue of DRM for your minis and the inability to transfer the virtual ownership to others, etc) though landed with the dull thud they deserved.

OMG, I had completely forgotten about Ex Illis. Still not really thinking that this hybridization is working aside from the physical DRM keys you buy for Skylanders et al.

A smartphone/tablet app is the way to do input for the software component. You don't have to run the game on the phone. The app could upload the data to a powerful computer or networked cluster for resolution, then download the results.

That said, modern smartphones are vastly more powerful than even high end desktop computers of 10 years ago. The main advantage of running everything on the server would be to minimise the amount of synchronisation of the data.

The problem is that the server connection then becomes mandatory, which kills the game when the server support drops. Look at all the dead MMOs and see where that goes. At least a phone-based app can hang around for later.

Also affordable or free wifi and mobile connection is unfortunately not the norm in most places of the globe.

Sigh.....

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem is that the server connection then becomes mandatory, which kills the game when the server support drops. Look at all the dead MMOs and see where that goes. At least a phone-based app can hang around for later.

Agreed. I'd prefer an offline capable app for longevity. It's not like wargamign calculations are processor intensive... they're designed for slightly above average intelligence and high school educated gamers to do on their own. Most could be done quickly on a monochroe palm pilot from 1998 in real time and don't require or even benefit from server side calculations for efficiancy. This applies only to a tabletop game that is capable of being played traditionally. The advantages and disadvantages change if we're talking about a game that is overwhelmingly virtual rather than physical.

Well, to be fair, KK is in Japan... It's not like he lives in some technological backwater like America.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Disney Infinity is aimed at fairly young children who greatly enjoy the collecting and the 'doll' aspect of the game.

This 'doll' enjoyment can last into adult life. What are wargame models except sophisticated miniature dolls, after all?

Absolutely. When I say it makes no sense in terms of the game, I mean the actual game design itself isn't driving the inclusion of the miniatures as part of purchasing new units. It can work very well in terms of players getting a nice new figurine, which is of course more fun than just getting some screen code.

I didn’t mean to imply that marketing considerations are always bad – if something is more fun then it’s all good, even if it isn’t part of the game itself.

In terms of computer modelling of combat, I take Sebsters point that players like to know the modifiers in order to make tactical decisions. However, real commanders didn't know that being attacked on the flank gave the enemy a +1 to their dice roll. They simply knew it was a bad idea to allow yourself to be attacked on the flank, and tried to avoid it, and to do it the other side.

Sure, but in the real world much of the skill of a commander is knowing how the battlefield really works. Napoleon knowing, or at least making a calculated gamble, that his troops in double march will arrive before the enemy can organise their flanking manoeuvre is the kind of calculation that made him great. But in a computer game that kind of calculation is only a meaningful gamble if the players have some understanding of how long each action will take. If all one player knows is his troops will be off map for some amount of time, and all the other players knows is his troops will take some amount of time to start moving after being given the order, and neither player has any idea of how long that will be, then what judgement is there beyond a guess?

Put that in a wargame, and you’d know the time to move up is, say, x hours plus D6 more hours, and the time to prepare their flank offensive is D3 hours, plus time moved across the field. A player can calculate the odds of success, and then balance that risk against what success or failure will mean for the greater battle.