End of the Silicon Dreams

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

Going back a couple of decades with wargames on the C-64 and the Apple
II firmly established there were often articles in the computer section
of wargame magazines titled "The future of wargaming on the computer"
or something along this line.

In such an article the author would dream-up his "perfect" computer
wargame, be it a fully 3D, full colour Squad Leader game with 3D
terrain and all, or a Pacific War game where *every* ship and plane was
tallied or a 3D submarine simulation game where you could walk around
the boat and man the station of your liking.

This sort of article usually ended with the author sighing and doubting
if computer hardware would achieve the level needed for this within his
lifetime and if games like that would be viable to make.

<You can see this one coming from a mile off> at this point in time we
have just about reached the computer hardware level needed to make such
dream-games come true. And these games have come true as well, we now
have a Combat Mission, a War in the Pacific and a Dangerous Waters.

Computer hardware has reached a level were - for wargames - hardware
limitations have nearly evaporated. The only thing limiting developers
now are the perenial time and money. I'm thankfull computers have
reached this level within my lifetime, but at the same time I'm a bit
sad that now that we've reached this silicon Nirvana there's nothing
left to dream about.
I've got dozens of games in my "in development" doc, and some of them
will be mighty fine games which I'll enjoy a lot, but none that have
the magic of those imaginary perfect games of 20 years ago.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> now that we've reached this silicon Nirvana there's nothing
> left to dream about.

There are still unfulfilled dreams. The computer screen still presents too
small of a view. Efficient and affordable wireless interaction with other
human beings is still in its infancy - as is interaction with artificial
intelligence actors. Little or nothing being done with verbal interaction
with games. Gotta be something someday that is more efficient than keyboard
and mouse.

I will not be satisfied until I own a personal halo deck.

Best regards, Major H.
tacops@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <BE927D77.81BAB%tacops@mac.com>, tacops@mac.com says...

> > now that we've reached this silicon Nirvana there's nothing
> > left to dream about.
>
> There are still unfulfilled dreams. The computer screen still presents too
> small of a view. Efficient and affordable wireless interaction with other
> human beings is still in its infancy - as is interaction with artificial
> intelligence actors. Little or nothing being done with verbal interaction
> with games. Gotta be something someday that is more efficient than keyboard
> and mouse.
>
> I will not be satisfied until I own a personal halo deck.

What I want is an unspecific, teachable AI that can act as a super-duper
AIDE DE CAMP system and learn and play - and play well - any boardgame I
wish.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and
the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional
role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more
than talking important matters to death."
- David S. Broder

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:56:54 GMT, Major H <tacops@mac.com> wrote:

>Little or nothing being done with verbal interaction
>with games.

You can get software that will allow you to verbally interpret all
keyboard commands for any game. I have the software and I've tried it
out but in the end I actually found the keyboard quicker and more
reliable. I felt kind of stupid shouting at the monitor screen too.
Call me a "luddite" if you will but I like my keyboard and mouse.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <dofq61t62i4dd6nv4e31hmpt253tc1jahq@4ax.com>, no@email.here
says...

> >Little or nothing being done with verbal interaction
> >with games.
>
> You can get software that will allow you to verbally interpret all
> keyboard commands for any game. I have the software and I've tried it
> out but in the end I actually found the keyboard quicker and more
> reliable. I felt kind of stupid shouting at the monitor screen too.
> Call me a "luddite" if you will but I like my keyboard and mouse.

Voice recognition has always been one of those "solutions in search of a
problem." All sorts of people are investing time, money, and effort at
getting it working - without having a clear idea who - *exactly* - is
going to pay money to have things they say rendered into a computer.

Input? Nah. Just pointing at something is always going to be faster,
easier, and less prone to (maybe catastrophic) error via one of the
tried-and-true input devices.

Writing? Hah! Not only is it brain-damaged to imagine that *speaking*
is anything like *writing*, expression-wise, but anyone who's ever
actually tried writing by speaking learns instantly that the amount of
work necessary to transform speech into writing - *after the words are
up on the screen* - is much larger than simply using the writing process
in the first place.

Games? Unless the game is ALGONQUIN ROUND TABLE, I'm not sure what fun
it could be to talk into a computer. Even then.

Overall, I just can't see what the Killer App in voice recognition is
going to be.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and
the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional
role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more
than talking important matters to death."
- David S. Broder

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Major H <tacops@mac.com> wrote in news:BE927D77.81BAB%tacops@mac.com:

>> now that we've reached this silicon Nirvana there's nothing
>> left to dream about.
>
> There are still unfulfilled dreams. The computer screen still
> presents too small of a view. Efficient and affordable wireless
> interaction with other human beings is still in its infancy - as is
> interaction with artificial intelligence actors. Little or nothing
> being done with verbal interaction with games. Gotta be something
> someday that is more efficient than keyboard and mouse.

I'll settle for the UI as seen in "Minority Report". Maybe I was feeling
too bluesy when I posted - it's been raining all day except for the
interludes when it poured and it's a monday to start with ...

> I will not be satisfied until I own a personal halo deck.

Which will be humanity's last invention as every engineer will lock
himself into one and never come out again - imagine trying to convince
them to come out when they're getting a masage from Claudia Schiffer's
better looking sister. (copyright Scott Adams)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:49:49 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Games? Unless the game is ALGONQUIN ROUND TABLE, I'm not sure what fun
>it could be to talk into a computer. Even then.

Oh, I can. Tactical games where as a captain (or even the Duke of
Wellington) you give verbal orders to your troops, in plain English:
"Get your ass up that hill and defilade those panzers!"


Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <i1qq61plq8dlbqgrp764f389ft1uramsm4@4ax.com>,
dav_and_frances_vandenbroucke@compuserve.com says...

> >Games? Unless the game is ALGONQUIN ROUND TABLE, I'm not sure what fun
> >it could be to talk into a computer. Even then.
>
> Oh, I can. Tactical games where as a captain (or even the Duke of
> Wellington) you give verbal orders to your troops, in plain English:
> "Get your ass up that hill and defilade those panzers!"

This might be fun - in a squad-command game like RAINBOW 6 that is
really little more than a glorified FPS - but think of all the raw
verbiage necessary to explain the same thing to a battalion TacAI
program that you can achieve in HTTR simply by clicking, "Assault->
waypoint->waypoint->waypoint->objective->fastest->quickest->max->rapid->
max." There. With ten-ish mouse clicks I've ordered the Irish Guards
to assault the Grave bridge.

Now imagine a balky "voice" routine responding to your phrase with, "I
don't understand, 'Geld your grass cut a hell an deflower toes
panzies!'"

Heck, MS-Word can't hardly figure out what I mean when I *misspell*
something.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and
the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional
role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more
than talking important matters to death."
- David S. Broder

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <MPG.1cd713e3886d61ed98a2aa@news-east.giganews.com>,
giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
> In article <dofq61t62i4dd6nv4e31hmpt253tc1jahq@4ax.com>, no@email.here
> says...
>
> > >Little or nothing being done with verbal interaction
> > >with games.
> >
> > You can get software that will allow you to verbally interpret all
> > keyboard commands for any game. I have the software and I've tried it
> > out but in the end I actually found the keyboard quicker and more
> > reliable. I felt kind of stupid shouting at the monitor screen too.
> > Call me a "luddite" if you will but I like my keyboard and mouse.
>
> Voice recognition has always been one of those "solutions in search of a
> problem." All sorts of people are investing time, money, and effort at
> getting it working - without having a clear idea who - *exactly* - is
> going to pay money to have things they say rendered into a computer.
>
> Input? Nah. Just pointing at something is always going to be faster,
> easier, and less prone to (maybe catastrophic) error via one of the
> tried-and-true input devices.
>
> Writing? Hah! Not only is it brain-damaged to imagine that *speaking*
> is anything like *writing*, expression-wise, but anyone who's ever
> actually tried writing by speaking learns instantly that the amount of
> work necessary to transform speech into writing - *after the words are
> up on the screen* - is much larger than simply using the writing process
> in the first place.
>
> Games? Unless the game is ALGONQUIN ROUND TABLE, I'm not sure what fun
> it could be to talk into a computer. Even then.
>
> Overall, I just can't see what the Killer App in voice recognition is
> going to be.

Some phone info already uses voice recognition. No operators to hire.
In there case, it could stand to get better.
--

Epi

------------
Have you ever noticed NPR stations only play
classical and jazz music, yet 9x% percent of
their stories on music are on rock groups.
Hmmm...Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> Oh, I can see all sorts of uses for embedded VR systems; you're
exactly
> right. But I'm talking about a home-PC type application.

Oh, the fun to be had with such software in a work environment.

<person 1> I've got voice commands in Word
<envious person 2> Isn't it dangerous, you might accidentally DELETE a
FILE.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:


> Overall, I just can't see what the Killer App in voice recognition is
> going to be.

Input in systems where users hands and eyes are supposed to be busy
doing other stuff than pointing stuff to computer. So for example
fighter planes, I think Eurofighter Typhoon has this kind of stuff.

Perhaps more general case could be some navigation computers etc. in
car. Just tell where you want to go and it starts telling you. Or
current use is voice dialing, so just say name and it calls. Of course
this is not really high tech

Or then home entertaiment system. Sure would be nice if could tell my
stereo to play some relaxing Rage Against the Machine or something like
that instead of me having to scroll through list of my music (and first
get some input device to do this).

But for "normal" computer use or games? Can't think of anything. Sure I
would feel stupid commanding my tanks in CM by talking to them. Well I
do that when they do stupid things but normally

--
jari k

remove unnecessary parts of address to make it work

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <d4jrb8$skh$1@epityr.hut.fi>, jari k
<email.is:Jari.Kujansuu@hut.fi.invalid> says...

> > Overall, I just can't see what the Killer App in voice recognition is
> > going to be.
>
> Input in systems where users hands and eyes are supposed to be busy
> doing other stuff than pointing stuff to computer. So for example
> fighter planes, I think Eurofighter Typhoon has this kind of stuff.

Oh, I can see all sorts of uses for embedded VR systems; you're exactly
right. But I'm talking about a home-PC type application.

> Perhaps more general case could be some navigation computers etc. in
> car. Just tell where you want to go and it starts telling you. Or
> current use is voice dialing, so just say name and it calls. Of course
> this is not really high tech

My cellphone has had this capacity for years, but I never use it. Far
easier to just slide a list down to the name I want than trying to get a
$300 cellphone to recognize me shouting into the receiver on a windy
day.

> But for "normal" computer use or games? Can't think of anything. Sure I
> would feel stupid commanding my tanks in CM by talking to them. Well I
> do that when they do stupid things but normally

Not to mention what my wife would think if I was shouting commands to my
units instead of quietly clicking my interface.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and
the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional
role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more
than talking important matters to death."
- David S. Broder

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> Even people have this problem, sometimes.

I seem to suffer from it permanently - my wife keeps giving verbal
orders that I somehow always seem to misinterpret

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1114496562.123233.209880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> > Oh, I can see all sorts of uses for embedded VR systems; you're
> exactly
> > right. But I'm talking about a home-PC type application.
>
> Oh, the fun to be had with such software in a work environment.
>
> <person 1> I've got voice commands in Word
> <envious person 2> Isn't it dangerous, you might accidentally DELETE a
> FILE.

Remember the fatal final scene from THE BEDFORD INCIDENT, where the
captain says, "If the sub fires one, we'll fire one."

Nervous Weapons Officer: "FIRE ONE!!!" Whoosh. Ooops.

Even people have this problem, sometimes.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and
the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional
role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more
than talking important matters to death."
- David S. Broder

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <d4jrb8$skh$1@epityr.hut.fi>, jari k
> <email.is:Jari.Kujansuu@hut.fi.invalid> says...


>>Perhaps more general case could be some navigation computers etc. in
>>car. Just tell where you want to go and it starts telling you. Or
>>current use is voice dialing, so just say name and it calls. Of course
>>this is not really high tech
>
>
> My cellphone has had this capacity for years, but I never use it. Far
> easier to just slide a list down to the name I want than trying to get a
> $300 cellphone to recognize me shouting into the receiver on a windy
> day.

Yeah, me either. Only reason when I would use it would be when using
hands free while driving ...but because I don't have car and even if had
hands free system it wouldn't propably work while driving with bike
because of wind

>>But for "normal" computer use or games? Can't think of anything. Sure I
>>would feel stupid commanding my tanks in CM by talking to them. Well I
>>do that when they do stupid things but normally
>
>
> Not to mention what my wife would think if I was shouting commands to my
> units instead of quietly clicking my interface.



Perhaps they would be nice in those FPS games, but my bet is that first
time I use such thing it will be with stereo or other such thing where
you are not sitting by computer with input devices already in your hand.



--
jari k

remove unnecessary parts of address to make it work

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Eddy Sterckx wrote:
> Major H <tacops@mac.com> wrote in news:BE927D77.81BAB%tacops@mac.com:

>>There are still unfulfilled dreams. The computer screen still
>>presents too small of a view. Efficient and affordable wireless
>>interaction with other human beings is still in its infancy - as is
>>interaction with artificial intelligence actors. Little or nothing
>>being done with verbal interaction with games. Gotta be something
>>someday that is more efficient than keyboard and mouse.
>
>
> I'll settle for the UI as seen in "Minority Report". Maybe I was feeling
> too bluesy when I posted - it's been raining all day except for the
> interludes when it poured and it's a monday to start with ...

Ok. So send order to Raytheon Just today there was small story in
newspaper that prototype of such interface exists already. Pentagon has
ordered it from Raytheon.



--
jari k

remove unnecessary parts of address to make it work

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:15:39 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

>There. With ten-ish mouse clicks I've ordered the Irish Guards
>to assault the Grave bridge.
>
>Now imagine a balky "voice" routine responding to your phrase with, "I
>don't understand, 'Geld your grass cut a hell an deflower toes
>panzies!'"

Oh, sure. With today's voice recognition technology it wouldn't work.
But, given that commanders spend most of their time talking to people,
a realistic wargame could be built around voice commands, once the
computers were able to understand them. So you'd just turn to the
commander of the Irish Guards and tell him, "Jimmy, go clear that
bridge for me." Jimmy wouldn't need you to give him the waypoints.



Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 07:07:21 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Remember the fatal final scene from THE BEDFORD INCIDENT, where the
>captain says, "If the sub fires one, we'll fire one."
>
>Nervous Weapons Officer: "FIRE ONE!!!" Whoosh. Ooops.
>
>Even people have this problem, sometimes.

Which is a good thing to have in wargames. Otherwise, the Light
Brigade never gets its moment of glory.


Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

jari k <email.is:Jari.Kujansuu@hut.fi.invalid> writes:


> Perhaps they would be nice in those FPS games, but my bet is that
> first time I use such thing it will be with stereo or other such thing
> where you are not sitting by computer with input devices already in
> your hand.

Depends how clumsy input devices are, for instance mouse wheel made easier
to swith weapons in Dooms and alike but I still miss something reliable method
which could have released a hand (or finger).


Handmarks, whispers, preconditioned messages and meeting points, errors, fatal
misunderstandings, presumptions, etc. are all those dirty and obligatory
arsenal which get chopped of in clean commercial games and always working easy to
use never jammable and exploitable communications are standart method.


Jukka

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <q3ct611n63gn7u6btn8qllhqpkpdal9qfv@4ax.com>,
dav_and_frances_vandenbroucke@compuserve.com says...

> >Now imagine a balky "voice" routine responding to your phrase with, "I
> >don't understand, 'Geld your grass cut a hell an deflower toes
> >panzies!'"
>
> Oh, sure. With today's voice recognition technology it wouldn't work.
> But, given that commanders spend most of their time talking to people,
> a realistic wargame could be built around voice commands, once the
> computers were able to understand them. So you'd just turn to the
> commander of the Irish Guards and tell him, "Jimmy, go clear that
> bridge for me." Jimmy wouldn't need you to give him the waypoints.

Is this the way real divisional general gives orders to battalion
commanders? Just "take that bridge?" Or is it *intensely* more
complicated, involving timetables, logistics, phase lines, axis of
advance, supporting artillery available, attached units ... ?

I'd bet you a dollar a real division commander would be overjoyed if he
could give orders as simply and effectively as an HTTR player could -
instead of all that babbling.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and
the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional
role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more
than talking important matters to death."
- David S. Broder

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> Is this the way real divisional general gives orders to battalion
> commanders? Just "take that bridge?" Or is it *intensely* more
> complicated, involving timetables, logistics, phase lines, axis of
> advance, supporting artillery available, attached units ... ?
>
> I'd bet you a dollar a real division commander would be overjoyed if
he
> could give orders as simply and effectively as an HTTR player could -

> instead of all that babbling.

LOL

IRL Div Commanders will issue orders ranging in complexity from the
simple "take that bridge" to the full OpOrder comprising 128 pages of
detailed instructions. It all depends on the circumstances. The more
"planned" an operation is the more detailed the OpOrder. These will
usally be "very detailed" for the commencement of an operation. But
once things are underway and time is of the essence, the senior
commander will rely on the "nouse" of his subordinate commanders and
leave the detailed planning to them. In such a case the OpOrder may be
a simple summary of the situation, followed by his intention, then a
succinct statement of the mission along with any constraints, such as
timings, available forces, op area/boundaries etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1114643051.880062.227660@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
dave@panthergames.com says...

> > Is this the way real divisional general gives orders to battalion
> > commanders? Just "take that bridge?" Or is it *intensely* more
> > complicated, involving timetables, logistics, phase lines, axis of
> > advance, supporting artillery available, attached units ... ?
> >
> > I'd bet you a dollar a real division commander would be overjoyed if
> > he could give orders as simply and effectively as an HTTR player could -
> > instead of all that babbling.


> IRL Div Commanders will issue orders ranging in complexity from the
> simple "take that bridge" to the full OpOrder comprising 128 pages of
> detailed instructions. It all depends on the circumstances. The more
> "planned" an operation is the more detailed the OpOrder. These will
> usally be "very detailed" for the commencement of an operation. But
> once things are underway and time is of the essence, the senior
> commander will rely on the "nouse" of his subordinate commanders and
> leave the detailed planning to them. In such a case the OpOrder may be
> a simple summary of the situation, followed by his intention, then a
> succinct statement of the mission along with any constraints, such as
> timings, available forces, op area/boundaries etc.

We're really chasing two hares in this discussion, though:

(1) The possibility of replacing mouse-clicks with voice recognition.
(2) The degree to which a TacAI routine can perform well with "simple"
orders.

Using HTTR as an example, I can easily envision a modification to the
interface that would allow a player to give orders via voice. It could
probably be accomplished incorporating off-the-shelf technology:

"ORDER: Contact 505 Parachute Battalion."
<505 Actual: Go Ahead>
"ORDER: Attack OBJECTIVE: Grave Bridge"
<505 Actual: Yes, sir. Attacking Grave Bridge>

But we could give *as simple* an order using the current HTTR interface,
just by clicking on the 505th HQ unit, pressing the "attack" icon, and
clicking on the Grave bridge. Thus we gain virtually nothing by using
voice.

The real problem arises when we try to chase both hares at once. Now, I
think the TacAI routines in HTTR are the best in the industry - but I
still wouldn't trust them to execute a complicated assault in a manner
which precisely fitted my overall strategy. I would at least set
waypoints to ensure that the unit didn't become snarled with other units
and attach units to support the attack and detail the speed and
aggressiveness I wanted the unit to manifest.

In real life, I might trust the colonel in charge of the 505th, who,
after all, probably knows the plan, knows the dispositions, knows the
situation - in short, *understands* a great many things that a TacAI is
never going to understand (not in my lifetime, anyhow...) - but it's
more likely that I would hear and modify his plan just to ensure it
wasn't at odds with <some other factor here>.

My point is that *if* - as seems very, very likely - a player would need
to set a bunch of parameters around even a very, very smart TacAI
routine, then no way can we give simple orders like "Attack the bridge."

Thus, our VR sequence looks a lot more like:

"ORDER: Contact 505 Parachute Battalion."
<505 Actual: Go Ahead>
"ORDER: Attack"
<505: Over>
"ORDER: WAYPOINT 234567"
<505: [waypoint appears] Over>
"ORDER: WAYPOINT 877667"
<505: [waypoint appears] Over>
"ORDER: WAYPOINT 182387"
<505: [waypoint appears] Over>
"ORDER: OBJECTIVE Grave Bridge"
<505: [objective set] Over>
"ORDER: Rate of Fire - ..........

Whew. Kinda makes going click-click-click-click look a lot more fun
that grunting into a microphone...



--
Giftzwerg
***
"The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech
today, using the word =3Ftorture=3F 38 times: On the Anniversary
of the Abu Ghraib Scandal. His gloating relish in recounting
tales of America=3Fs transgressions, seared into his memory
just like John F. Kerry=3Fs mythical Christmas voyage to Cambodia,
is almost as repellent as his bloated, about-to-explode-like-
a-German-toad physical appearance. What an absolutely reprehensible
human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance
and bitterness of today=3Fs Democratic party."
- Charles Johnson

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In message <i1qq61plq8dlbqgrp764f389ft1uramsm4@4ax.com>, Dav
Vandenbroucke <dav_and_frances_vandenbroucke@compuserve.com> writes
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:49:49 -0400, Giftzwerg
><giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Games? Unless the game is ALGONQUIN ROUND TABLE, I'm not sure what fun
>>it could be to talk into a computer. Even then.
>
>Oh, I can. Tactical games where as a captain (or even the Duke of
>Wellington) you give verbal orders to your troops, in plain English:
>"Get your ass up that hill and defilade those panzers!"
>
Do you have a reference for the battle where the Duke of Wellington said
that?
--
John Secker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Martin Rapier wrote:
> Verbal orders have to be issued extremely clearly and carefully
according to
> set procedures - shouting 'fire' on an RN vessel will lead to people
running
> around with hoses and fire extinguishers rather than shooting at the
enemy.
> It is also frequently somewhat hard to be heard in the middle of a
battle so
> hand signals are rather more useful - now I'd really like to see the
iToy
> style interface which can interpret hand signals.

Since we're throwing ideas around - how about :

voice commands in combination with a touchscreen ?

<touch unit> "all-out attack at 0500" <touch position to attack>
"waypoints" <touch various waypoints>
<touch other unit> "recon" <touch screen for route> or <circle area>
<touch arty unit> "on-call fire"
....

As I hate fingermarks on my screen and for accuracy purposes, some
stylus might come in handy here.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Agree. A historical anecdote, from Guderian that's possibly pertinent to
this thread and another intrusion of wargames into war, rather than the
other way
around. It's 12 May 1940 and we're back on the Meuse:

"Back at Corps headquarters I settled down at once to drawing up orders. In
view of the very short time at our disposal, we were forced to take the
orders used in the war games at Koblenz from our files and, after changing
the dates and times, issue these orders for the attack. They fitted
perfectly to the reality of the situation. The only change that had to be
made was that at Koblenz we had imagined the attack going in at 10.00
instead of 16.00 hours. 1st and 10th Panzer Divisions copied this procedure
and so the issuing of orders was an agreeably quick and simple process."

"During the night 12th-13th May the divisions issued orders to their unit
commanders which began: 'Attack in accordance with map exercise carried out
on ...'""

No doubt the Dyle Plan-ees eventually did the same thing on occasion. The
order in question (Preliminary order for the attack across the Meuse) only
runs to 5 dot points, the last of which is: "5. I am relying on the energy
of the gentlemen in command of the divisions." Who would want to say that
about any TacAI?

Also, to add another silicon day dream to the pot: In the game set-up phase
players could tick a list of parameters for their overall game plan, and
where they depart from it the reaction time for all their units should go up
accordingly.

Regards, Mike Kreuzer

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cdafc746561f72798a2b1@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <1114643051.880062.227660@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> dave@panthergames.com says...
>
>> > Is this the way real divisional general gives orders to battalion
>> > commanders? Just "take that bridge?" Or is it *intensely* more
>> > complicated, involving timetables, logistics, phase lines, axis of
>> > advance, supporting artillery available, attached units ... ?
>> >
>> > I'd bet you a dollar a real division commander would be overjoyed if
>> > he could give orders as simply and effectively as an HTTR player
>> > could -
>> > instead of all that babbling.
>
>
>> IRL Div Commanders will issue orders ranging in complexity from the
>> simple "take that bridge" to the full OpOrder comprising 128 pages of
>> detailed instructions. It all depends on the circumstances. The more
>> "planned" an operation is the more detailed the OpOrder. These will
>> usally be "very detailed" for the commencement of an operation. But
>> once things are underway and time is of the essence, the senior
>> commander will rely on the "nouse" of his subordinate commanders and
>> leave the detailed planning to them. In such a case the OpOrder may be
>> a simple summary of the situation, followed by his intention, then a
>> succinct statement of the mission along with any constraints, such as
>> timings, available forces, op area/boundaries etc.
>
> We're really chasing two hares in this discussion, though:
>
> (1) The possibility of replacing mouse-clicks with voice recognition.
> (2) The degree to which a TacAI routine can perform well with "simple"
> orders.
>
> Using HTTR as an example, I can easily envision a modification to the
> interface that would allow a player to give orders via voice. It could
> probably be accomplished incorporating off-the-shelf technology:
>
> "ORDER: Contact 505 Parachute Battalion."
> <505 Actual: Go Ahead>
> "ORDER: Attack OBJECTIVE: Grave Bridge"
> <505 Actual: Yes, sir. Attacking Grave Bridge>
>
> But we could give *as simple* an order using the current HTTR interface,
> just by clicking on the 505th HQ unit, pressing the "attack" icon, and
> clicking on the Grave bridge. Thus we gain virtually nothing by using
> voice.
>
> The real problem arises when we try to chase both hares at once. Now, I
> think the TacAI routines in HTTR are the best in the industry - but I
> still wouldn't trust them to execute a complicated assault in a manner
> which precisely fitted my overall strategy. I would at least set
> waypoints to ensure that the unit didn't become snarled with other units
> and attach units to support the attack and detail the speed and
> aggressiveness I wanted the unit to manifest.
>
> In real life, I might trust the colonel in charge of the 505th, who,
> after all, probably knows the plan, knows the dispositions, knows the
> situation - in short, *understands* a great many things that a TacAI is
> never going to understand (not in my lifetime, anyhow...) - but it's
> more likely that I would hear and modify his plan just to ensure it
> wasn't at odds with <some other factor here>.
>
> My point is that *if* - as seems very, very likely - a player would need
> to set a bunch of parameters around even a very, very smart TacAI
> routine, then no way can we give simple orders like "Attack the bridge."
>
> Thus, our VR sequence looks a lot more like:
>
> "ORDER: Contact 505 Parachute Battalion."
> <505 Actual: Go Ahead>
> "ORDER: Attack"
> <505: Over>
> "ORDER: WAYPOINT 234567"
> <505: [waypoint appears] Over>
> "ORDER: WAYPOINT 877667"
> <505: [waypoint appears] Over>
> "ORDER: WAYPOINT 182387"
> <505: [waypoint appears] Over>
> "ORDER: OBJECTIVE Grave Bridge"
> <505: [objective set] Over>
> "ORDER: Rate of Fire - ..........
>
> Whew. Kinda makes going click-click-click-click look a lot more fun
> that grunting into a microphone...
>
>
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech
> today, using the word =3Ftorture=3F 38 times: On the Anniversary
> of the Abu Ghraib Scandal. His gloating relish in recounting
> tales of America=3Fs transgressions, seared into his memory
> just like John F. Kerry=3Fs mythical Christmas voyage to Cambodia,
> is almost as repellent as his bloated, about-to-explode-like-
> a-German-toad physical appearance. What an absolutely reprehensible
> human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance
> and bitterness of today=3Fs Democratic party."
> - Charles Johnson