Although I fully understand the desires and motivation of some wargamers to do so, and although I also agree that smartphones and tablets are easy to use around the wargaming the table as opposed to a laptop or an old-fashioned desktop, I think that using digital technology *during* the game misses the point of what miniature wargaming is about. Of course, we all use computers for peripheral wargaming activities outside the actual games: writing blogs, purchasing wares, reading rules, keeping track of our collections, writing campaign diaries ... all of these activities have been digitized. But using a computer during the game? I'm not so sure ...
One of the functions that is often digitized is combat resolution. Instead of rolling dice, looking up results in tables etc., the computer can do that work for us. That is a true statement. But why would we want the computer to do that for us? There is a joy in rolling the dice and reading the results. Why use a sterile digital mechanism instead? One of the reasons often mentioned is that combat resolution - or other mechanisms - are too complex. They involve rolling too many dice, looking up too many modifiers, looking up results in too many tables. That is certainly a problem in some rulesets. But the answer is not too digitize those procedures, but rather make them simpler and easier to use. In other words, make them more elegant and design them better. A badly designed procedure remains a badly procedure when digitized. The bad design is simply hidden from the user, but the design still sucks.
For me, miniature wargaming is foremost an analogue and tactile experience. The quintessential element of the medium is handling and moving toy soldiers, and should be preserved at all times. Moreover, I also think that the "helper" devices such as dice, rulers, cards, ... should be analogue as well. I am not saying a wargaming should always use dice or rulers - there are good designs that do without those - but whatever you use to play the game, should be in line with the tactile activity of handling the toy soldiers themselves. At least for me, all these elements should form a coherent whole. No hybrid game formats in *my* wargaming! But of course, you can do in your wargaming whatever you want :-)
In the past, I have compared using computers in miniature wargaming as using advanced technology in other analogue hobbies such as painting landscapes. Why not use a digital camera instead, or even 3-D print your painting as is possible these days? That will surely give you a much more accurate rendition of the landscape ... ? Because the point is not to recreate the visual image of the landscape, but creating an image using paints and brushes ...
Now, I am not a luddite opposed to anything digital. I am a computer scientist, teach computer science, and do research in computer graphics. But perhaps that's another reason I want to keep digital devices out of my wargaming. Having to work with computers and staring at screens all day, I want my hobby to be clear from bits and bytes.
So, instead of putting my creativity into writing programs for wargaming, I will keep them focused on designing better analogue gaming mechanics. Because I believe that's where the soul of miniature wargaming really is.
Interesting read and I know your views on such aberrations but we over in Blighty have just ended the computer-assisted wargame of the Battle of Britain that you had a part of play-testing way back in 2012. With over 160 squadrons, each with about a dozen factors, managing that amount of paperwork just isn't feasible. I understand about the need to roll dice but there are sometimes when the assistance of technology does advance the game.
ReplyDeleteI'm more concerned about the rise of short, historically inaccurate games such as What a Tanker and Command and Control. Fun as a game but annoyingly slow and historically wrong. Just don't get me started on Flames of War !
Hi Graham,
DeleteYes, I do remember the Battle of Britain game you ran at Bart's previous place. But even so, you might wonder whether the computer is really necessary. You might indeed say that otherwise you cannot keep track of the changing status of 100+ squadrons, but perhaps tracking that changing status is the wrong premisse to start with :-)
Far be it from me to dictate to anyone what they do when miniatures wargaming, but I wonder if you have tried the game discussed in Miniature Wargames? It was designed for 54mm glossy toy soldiers, and involves exactly as much dice rolling as pretty much any other (simple, Wellsian toy soldier) game. What the app replaces is not the dice rolling but a lot of card decks and the rules to keep track of them - exactly the part of analogue wargaming which is annoying, unsightly, and clutters the tabletop. I love the physical aspects of miniatures wargaming (and indeed, collecting toy soldiers), but using an app, for me, doesn't intrude on this anymore than using a paper rulebook and charts.
ReplyDeleteI write a lot of computer-assisted miniatures games, and a lot of analogue ones. But I have never felt that my designs took anything away from the excellence of a good-looking tabletop full of painted miniatures! To each their own, of course - as a computer professional I can appreciate not wanting to deal with them in your leisure time. (For disclosue's sake, I should mention that my first name is Arofan ;-)
Hi Arofan,
DeleteI have looked at "With the Colours in the Late War", and ran through it more than a few times (without doing the toy soldier part), to see how it worked (after all, one should test something before writing about it :-)). I certainly agree that it can serve as a scenario generator, which you would otherwise have to run using random-encounter tables or using cards or something similar. Moreover, a random-encounter table or card deck would make it difficult to keep a "memory" of past events and encounters, or to use correlations with previous generated events, something a computer program definitely could do.
But even then, I still think an analogue equivalent would be more appealing to me, exactly because of the credo that miniature wargaming should be analogue, not digital. But I fully agree this is a matter of style and personal preferences, not something all wargamers should take as gospel. I even have participated in some computer-assisted games (not using your software though), and enjoyed them. I would certainly not decline an invitation to participate in such games, because I also think it's important to keep an open mind. It's just that right now, such games would not be my first choice. But 5 years from now, I might perhaps think differently ;-)