In general it seems that I was right in thinking that what wargamers want is a fast, historically accurate game. Slow response times and illogical troop reactions are definitely out. However, ease of use has also emerged as a major factor. It here that players say that improvements need to be made as soon as possible if computer assisted wargaming is to advance. The major issue affecting ease of use is how the user interface is handled. Other factors such as fog of war and new technology were also hot topics. I will now discuss these requirements as expressed by interested gamers in what seemed to be their order of priority.

THE USER INTERFACE

The main concern is how the person gets data into the computer. The display of system responses is also an issue but not to quite the same extent, and the comments I received there are discussed under Fog of War. The main difficulty expressed was that you usually have to enter data via the keyboard. This is reported to be less of a chore during the game than it is during the army setup, when you have to put the description of the units and generals into the system. A number of requirements were registered. These are:

Fewer Keystrokes - More Mouse. More extensive mouse support is high on the list for improving the setup area. In my own games I have mainly used the mouse in the battle segment rather than in the modules which are used to setup units and generals. It seems that in fact the setup area is the main area of need. Users are discouraged by having to do a lot of keyboard work and the mouse makes this easier by reducing keystrokes. While the mouse needs a good surface to be effective and this could be a problem for some, they are in the minority. Setup is often performed when the player is at home with a good mouse surface available. Provided the option is given to use both there should be no problem.

Ready Made Units and Generals. In the game setup module it is suggested that a large range of historical officers and units can be provided and chosen. In my games I have provided some armies that are already setup. These can be copied and modified to create new armies. This is OK but more can be done as even modifying a copy of an army requires some retyping. Copying an entire army also does not help when you need to start a new army from scratch.

DURING THE BATTLE PHASE THINGS COULD BE IMPROVED TOO

More mice in the firing line! More mouse support is once again a requirement. My original concern was that a mouse can be more trouble than it is worth when a suitable surface is not available, and that since games are often played in "rough conditions" the mouse would be of little use during a game. However players report that more often than not a good surface is available during battle. So the requirement is to extend the mouse features in battle modules too.

Easier Identification & Selection of Units. There was an interesting suggestion that bar codes could be used to help identify units and generals during firing and melee phases of the battle. The system could print unit and commander information in bar code and/or text form on sticky labels. These would then be put on the base of the unit and could be read by a bar code reader during the game. In the absence of a bar code reader, a player could easily read the text on the base to identify the unit. This would also help keep the information in the system and the name on the unit consistent, at least at the time the label is produced.

Some players have tried using bar codes and report that it significantly reduced keyboard work. There is no free lunch however, as the bar codes and text labels get worn when units are slid over gritty surfaces. They then become hard for the reader (be it human or electronic) to recognise. This is not a major impediment however and the idea has much merit.

The bar code reader is often used detached from the PC with a built in memory. The codes for all firers or combatants are read and then taken and processed as a batch for each round. A print out of results can be produced for each player. This allows the game to be held without the need for a PC at or close to the table. However the time taken reading and processing the codes and the processing delay imposed by the batch approach can be frustrating to some gamers who like an immediate response. Once again the idea has merit as an option for players who are not near a PC. I will be looking into this more.

Another approach is to use a touch sensitive screen. This has the advantage of removing the keyboard and avoids the mouse's drawback of needing a suitable surface. On the other hand it is more expensive and not many PC's come with one. This too is worthy of serious consideration.

Better Screen Visibility. During the game the screen of the PC is not always visible to the players and some like to see the screen as events are reported as this increases their feeling of involvement. To overcome this one player had a great idea that is within the reach of many of us. This is to switch the PC's output into a TV set. The player concerned has a large gaming table in his basement, and uses this approach so that you can see the screen from anywhere in the room.

This way everyone can see what is going on at once. I have tried this and find that it makes a multiplayer game much easier to run. Everyone can see what is going on and discuss to the responses.

More GUI - less Text. This was suggested more as a solution to meet the requirements outlined above rather than as a requirement itself. The experience of many of us using PC at home and work is that a more Graphical User Interface (GUI) such as Microsoft Windows is far easier to interact with than the older "text" screens. However a GUI requires a more powerful PC. The old XT or 286 cannot support a GUI. In the original article I expressed some doubts about the wisdom of moving to a GUI and proposed the view that it is best to position the technology behind the state of the art so that all PC's from the XT upwards would be able to use it. This is not borne out by the response gamers have giver. Many prefer the advantages of being state of the art!

The predominant view expressed by players was that, as the 486, 586 and faster chips become more common, the entire installed base of home PC's will readily support Windows. Some consider that this is almost the case now. "If you position your programs so that they have that attractive interface then the gamers will go after them, regardless." was one comment that summed it up.

Some other players do not seem to be so sanguine however. The older PC's are still reported to be alive and kicking out there. After all, what else would you stick in the basement or back shed where you have your permanent wargame table set up?

To meet the user interface requirements stated above the move to a Windows version seems inevitable. For my own games I am strongly considering using Microsoft's Visual Basic as it supports multi-media as well as allowing the developer to produce a high quality GUI reasonably quickly. How will this affect those with older PC's?

The answer is I think to provide players with the option to use either text based or GUI based games for some time into the future. At a point in the future (not too far distant) the GUI will take over entirely. With my own software I intend to complete my range of game software for the old 8086 (XT) chip and up this year and then start converting to Windows later next year. That will add to the software support load for a time, but will still allow me to provide the two alternatives. This would have been a burden, except that I have modularised the software so that many code modules (eg charge tests) can be shared by both GUI and text systems. I have also used a version of BASIC that can be converted to Microsoft's Visual Basic without too much trouble. So the requirement is not too hard to meet in fact.

FOG OF WAR

In the previous article I emphasised the extent to which computers could help simulate a fog of war. While a number of us like that approach, many other gamers want more information not less. Contrary to what I expected, the latter turned out to be the majority by far, if my responses are anything to go by. Most players who spoke to me (whether they used computer support or not) said they would be more interested in computer assisted systems if the internal decision making process was less "closed" to the player.

The need was best summarised by one gamer - interestingly enough, a behaviour modification specialist - who wrote to discuss player reactions to computer generated screen comments on the outcome of events such as melee and shooting. He wrote that more comment " - gives a great deal of feedback to the player on why things are happening in a certain way. I believe most computer games are too much involved with the fog of war, which frustrates the players, and which explains why minis players are willing to do all the work of calculating manually in return for detailed feedback. What is necessary for an accurate game is to limit the control over units to a historic level, while giving a rich stream of feedback to the player as if he was reading a good history of the battle."

This same need has been stated in another way by other players who wanted to be able to generate a statement of why an outcome had occurred. Why was this unit routed by the threat of a charge? In summary, there seems to be a requirement for generating a more complete summary of the reason for outcomes. This could be optional, to suit those who prefer the "fog of war" - which after all is probably more historically accurate.

There are a number of levels on which this need could be met. The simplest but most limited level is to add more comments on the nature of the reaction. For example, instead of the short reply "They Rout!", the statement "The exhausted troops have taken a high level of casualties, and so break in rout". Coupled with this would be the addition of a function key that provided an expanded description of the reason for the outcome. This is well within the range of current technology and gets us somewhere, but surely more can be done.

A further step would be to use static images of routing units etc would enhance the atmosphere of the game and improve its ease of use by using a visual impact to reinforce the information in the text message. Once again, not too hard.

At a more sophisticated level multi-media output could be incorporated to depict the situation unfolding before your eyes. Film and video clips could be used to provide a visual representation of what had happened. For example, a film clip of a rout would be depicted occurring in one corner of the screen to reinforce the message on the screen. This is much easier said than done however, as the film clips would have to be appropriate for the troop type and period. It would not do to portray Napoleonic infantry in rout when the unit concerned actually consists of medieval knights.

This approach could require a lot of film clips (and royalty payments) unless we make use of the rich pool of historical re-enactment players who have gone to a lot of time and trouble to produce correct uniforms, weapons etc for a variety of periods. The level of historical accuracy amongst the re-enactment groups is probably much higher than with a number of the popular commercial films anyway. That would enhance the attraction of the system by adding local colour. There are also a lot of old documentary and film clips that are out of royalty and could be used. It's not out of the question, as long as you don't expect too much too soon. Multimedia for computers is a reality and it is mainly the availability of appropriate footage that inhibits us. Languages such as Visual Basic Version 3 readily support multi-media. Naturally you will need a more powerful computer. The old XT or 286 in the basement cannot hope to support multi-media.

FLEXIBILITY

This is a factor that affects most computer systems and wargame systems are no exception. The main thrust here is to look for a "shell" that players can use to set up their own parameters. If they don't agree with the effect of certain weapons, the point at which morale fails etc then they can modify the system themselves. It was one of my objectives to make my systems like this when I first started out. However for a very good reason it has not happened, but I can now see a way ahead!

Before I started developing computer assisted wargames, I thought that the mechanics inside would be much the same as in a paper based set of rules. I soon realised that nothing could be further from the truth! To make it worthwhile to build a computer system you need to add more to the game mechanics, without burdening the player. You have to fundamentally rethink the internal rules so that you can add the extra complexity and subtlety, such as the interactions of officers, orders, casualties, fatigue, morale, formation, opponents and much, much more. The kind of lookup tables we are accustomed to are simply not enough. As a result, large decision trees with complex interactions are developed and these are not readily modified. A simple change at one point in the system can wreak havoc and make the results of shooting and melee "crazy".

Since the "factors" that affect shooting etc are within the software it is possible to modify them without another player else knowing. As a result, the integrity of the results can be modified by the naive or the sneaky to either create an accidental mess of the rules or to give an unfair advantage to one type of army. Naturally this has potential to be a real game killer regardless of whether it is due to accident or to gamesmanship - and so I kept well away from it.

However I believe there is a way to alter the parameters without causing havoc, allowing cheating and without exposing the player to the bewildering complexity of the system's internal mechanics, and I intend to put it into my games. The approach is simply to have a table of setup options that allow you to modify, but not fundamentally alter the main factors and their relationships within the game. For example, you could set the effects of shooting or melee for different weapon classes within a 3 or 5 point scale over a high to low range. The system would apply the effect and it would be possible to inspect the current settings and change them at any time within the game.

A small message would be displayed to make all players aware of the fact that the settings had been altered from the norm, just so they could check the settings and propose a change if they prefer. It's one of those things that seem obvious once you see how to implement it. There is a chance of opening up an area for dispute here, as we gamers often have different historical views, but I can now understand the desire to open up the software and make it more flexible. Any other ideas?

Another major issue with flexibility occurs with Chain of Command hierarchies. Different armies and different theatres of war require different command levels with units attached at<%-2> different levels. Players reported that they found fixed hierarchies a problem. They want to have as many or as few com

mand levels as they want (within reason), and to be able to link units to whichever command level they think appropriate. Once it was stated, this was obviously a reasonable requirement and I have already implemented it.

NEW TECHNOLOGY

In the last article I mentioned that the smallest PC's, the so-called "palm tops", had the potential to free players from the portability problems of bulky hardware, but had such a limited screen size that the screen handling parts of software would have to be rewritten to run on them. The palm tops had 40 columns and 14 rows, compared to the 80 columns and 25 rows of a conventional large screen. This meant that developers with existing systems for PC's would have had to rewrite the screen handling routines to reduce the amount of data displayed.

This would also have degraded the quality of the user interface as a smaller amount of information would have been displayed for the gamer at any one time.

Since then things have advanced and you can now buy good quality palm tops with the same 80 columns and 25 rows as the conventional screen. Naturally the screen is much smaller but it is reported to be clear to read. You can hold the palm tops at any distance that suits from your eyes if that makes reading easier. I will investigate this further and will report more in a later article (if Dick Bryant permits!). I understand that all is still not plain sailing as Palm tops may be difficult to load data into and have no colour and no GUI to help make screens more user friendly. So don't rush out any buy them yet!

Another major development is the advent of Windows NT, a new operating system that will probably have implications for running computer assisted systems over networks to support time sharing, tournaments and games between players at different locations. It should also have a favourable impact on that elusive grail of computing - user friendliness. Once again I will report on this in a later article (with Dick Bryant's indulgence) after I have done more investigation.

THE FUTURE VISION: A TOTALLY INTEGRATED SYSTE

The good news is that a clear picture of what players want in the long term has emerged. The bad news is that it is definitely in the future. So what is the ultimate vision. Users want the system to minimise data entry as far as possible. To do this the main components would need to be:-

1. A sensitised playing surface that is directly interfaced to the support system.

2. Sensitised units that would allow the system to know their details (e.g. unit name) and where they are located on the playing surface.

This would allow the system to know who was firing and what the ranges were, without the user having to input this. Figures would be supplied with built in "smart chips" that could hold enough data to describe the unit or commander represented and display that data as needed. That will be a challenge for the figure makers!

3. The support software itself, which would incorporate:

A . a database of all the main armes and units of the theatre of war concerned;
B. range of options for the main background elements of a wargame, such as fog of war, weather, ammunition etc.
C. GUI interface, mouse or pen driven;
D. produce name labels and machine readable tags (such bar codes) for each unit. These would be attached to allow easy identification of the units by the players and automatic identification by the system through the sensitised surface;
E. contain multi-media clips to enhance the feed back and provide the "good historical account" of the battle;
F. provide a "Shell" for developing your own system;
G. allow players to modify the parameters of the existing system.

These elements would be combined in a game so that the player simply moves the units and the table senses which unit is where. This avoids the need for the player to determine and input information such as firing ranges and resolve positional issues such as whether enemy units are within charge reach or within arc of fire .

WHO IS THE COMPUTER ASSISTED WARGAMER?

I was sure this exercise would bring out a profile of what the computer assisted wargamer was like and perhaps indicate how he/she differed from other gamers. However what emerged was that the profile of computer assisted gamer was the same as to that of most other gamers I have encountered. That is to say, they vary greatly and defy typing. In fact you could say that no clear sub-type emerged at all.

I had expected that there would be an emphasis on players with high PC literacy, but some who like computer support a lot are practically PC illiterate (no names!). The multi-period player was another type of player I expected to emerge as well. However there seem to be as many players who focus on a single period as in the general run of wargamers. So I guess that the computer support user is the same as everyone else. This augurs well for the future of support as it suggests there is no real barrier to entry. I think the last word on this was spoken by Dick Bryant himself, who said "...it simply it depends how you like to play."

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, I would say that computer support is growing and seems to be reaching a "critical mass" where it is a small but emerging force in wargaming. Since there are no apparent barriers to entry for players and all kinds of players seem equally well represented, it will probably continue to grow. The technology is also evolving to support a more user friendly system that can be used in multi-player games over networks.

Given the small size of the market though, the co-operative approach is still probably the most viable approach for its ongoing development. I doubt if IBM is going to move in and provide for our needs - we'll have to do it ourselves! So long for now- I've got work to do.

Any more ideas or comments? Keep them rolling in to:-Clinton Reilly, Computer Strategies, 32 Brown Street, Bronte, NSW 2024. AUSTRALIA. Or if you prefer to phone, (02) 389-8943 in Australia, 010-612-389-8943 from the UK or Direct Dial 011-612-389-8943 from the US.