Future Game Design
2009 is a "building year", to use a sports metaphor, for the Foundation. While the Foundation dates from its incorporation in 2001, the real genesis of our group is from the "Gettysburg revolt" of 1996 by some members of the now-defunct ACCW hobby group. This resulted in BLADD and the conduct of CWOL 1 in 1997. That means that some of us have been doing this for over 12 years. Time flies when you're having fun.
Besides the change over to the new corporate ISP and the start of the corporate re-structure there is major research & development underway for future game engines. Due to the "breadboard" nature of these new concepts there is no new game engine or simulation to offer the general Guild membership this year. However, there is serious interest in getting the this next set of simulations (this will be generation 3) "done right".
In the interest of checking the current R&D azimuth and looking to break some of the legacy conventions from the Generation 1 (BLADD & SAS suite) & Generation 2 (GITM/PATE suite) game engines this forum topic is opened to solicit opinions on some of the current schools of thought as the HOLF Studies Group goes through the analysis, design, & development cycle for future game environments. This is not a criticism of past Generation 1 & 2 simulations. All veterans players have many fond memories of brave defenses at gates or bold attacks from the open flank using all these game engines but all of us agree that our hobby is one of evolution and, hopefully, product improvement.
NOTE: As some of you know, concept development is something that should never be done by committee. The committee approach results in such interesting results as the M60A2 main combat tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (there's an oxymoron for you), or the newly cancelled Mounted Combat System. For most of you, this will be the only exposure you will have to product development until we start large group user tests. So do not think that R&D by the Foundation will seek to adopt the Tower of Babel model.
Hopefully the point is now made that this is not intended as a bitch-fest on current game designs. What is intended is a forum to get opinions from all of you on current ideas for future game development by HOLF.
- Terms
- Strategic - waging war at the national level on a global scale. Usually by the setting of war policy & objectives, allocation of resources, diplomatic actions, and procurement decisions.
- Operational - fighting of a campaign in the same regional area to achieve a specific strategic objective. Involves intelligence gathering, manuever of forces, combat action by subordinate elements, logistics, and reduction of the enemy's ability to wage war in the region.
- Tactical - fighting of battles and engagements by combat units. Some authorities try to break this level into two segments: tactical {fighting of engagements (i.e., subordinate unit tactical actions)} and grand tactical {fighting of battles that will consist of a series of engagements in a local area executed to achieve a battlefield result}.
- Game engine - the software used to conduct a game. There are many varieties of game engines in use today. In this instance, the term is used to describe what is used by HOLF. The preference is for a software suite, web-based (meaning there is no software to download upon a player's personal computer and that all player inputs are done via a inteface residing on a URL), that is offered free of charge to participants. This software would replicate unit movements, logistic requirements, and combat actions based on player inputs and default unit characteristics. Units are dependent on player inputs for their actions. Otherwise, the units will do nothing except execute their logistic requirements.
- Game Front-End (also called the game interface) - the controls that allow the players and game administrator to interact with the game engine.
- Web-based game engine - a game engine that resides on a server or host computer at a central location. All resolution of unit behaviors and actions are executed on this server rather than the player's computer. This system requires input from the player for unit actions via an game interface that resides on a URL, through a web form, or via email.
- Client-based software - a software suite that resides on the player's computer solely or in concert with software residing on a central server located elsewhere. The client software provides inputs to the game engine on the central server via machine-language (or specialized software coding) messages for combat resolution or unit actions.
- Simulation - a replication of a actual human activity. In this case, we are talking about simulation of a military-based activity using what is called a "constructive simulation" (the simulation is built to replicate the environment replicated). There are many levels of constructive simulations. We are aiming at the less complex, high resolution realm of the mid-range constructive type. Other types of simulations are live and virtual but we don't have the millions of dollars it takes for each of these (though our re-enactor members do a form of live simulation).
Here are some of the ideas under discussion for future simulations.
- Concept 1: It is impossible to truely synchronize the time/distance factors for a strategic, operational & tactical hybrid game system. Any future game system should only focus on the operational level with some strategic input protocols. Tactical battle results should be generated by the software when conditions for a battle is forced by the operational situation.
- Concept 2: HOLF needs a true tactical combat game vehicle detached from any campaign or larger scale interactive game vehicle. This tactical game engine would be used for tactical and/or grand tactical scenarios for famous battles from the American Revolution through the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. The emphasis would be wars in the Americas from 1846-1876.
- Concept 3: The true strenght of HOLF-sponsored simulations is the reliance on player communication to plan & coordinate game play. All previous game designs have used unit-based icons to portray forces on the game maps and to manipulate forces during the scenarios. The next generation game engine should drop the use of unit-based icons and adopt a system of player-based icons (HQs units) that control forces in their same physical location at the operational & strategic levels. When battles occur, the units would be laid out on the battlefield map for a minatures-style tactical battle procedure. This system would build on player communications and coordination as currently established. It would also lessen the ability for higher level commanders to micro-manage tactical deployments and allow a more historically accurate "learning curve" to occur as senior-subordinate communications are worked out.
- Concept 4: HOLF needs a stand alone sea-power game that replicates the conditions from the Seven Years War through the advent of the steel-based pre-dreadnoughts. This game engine would be able to support scenarios for classic "blue water" conflicts of the Nelson era to ACW era port assaults as well as riverine battles from the ACW and War of the Triple Alliance in South America. Additionally, this game engine could be used for the blockade running scenarios from the ACW as well commerce raiding.
- Concept 5: Development of a "master game engine" (MGE) that would be powered by a database that allows a hybrid game at the strategic - operational - tactical levels. This hybrid MGE would combine the features of the tactical game from Concept 2 with a operational/strategic game engine like Concept 3 to allow a detailed game to replicate the American Civil War, Mexican-American War, the Wars of Liberation in South America (Simon Bolivar), Wars of Unification in Germany/Italy or custom scenarios from the Pax Britannia. Additionally, the database would be able to allow input from a sea-based game engine like Concept 4. This simulation would proceed at a much slower rate than the current NWOL events and could take several years to complete a iteration.
For your consideration and comment.
Who's new
- frodenygaard
- IronDuke
- bubby7767
- Von Garv
- jeff z
Future Game Design
John,
Concept 3 seems to be where the real innovation lies. I'm having a little trouble visualizing how it would work. Could you elaborate please? Graphics of examples would be helpful.
Concept 5 seems vastly ambitious. The problem in the past has been that if there are two turns per week and a turn represents an hour of tactical battle (for example), a one-day battle could last 5 weeks. A battle like Gettysburg would last 3 months real time. So basically, every time a tactical situation arises you need a month of real time to simulate every day of the fight. Unless both sides are going to be allowed to reinforce the battle from great distances, strategic time has to be suspended. Further, if you take the totality of a war like the ACW there were probably very few days historically where there wasn't some tactical fight going on someone on the map. So to complete a war like the ACW would take a lifetime. Maybe several of them. I have a brand new grandson. Perhaps I should plan on training him to finish such a game for me. :-)
The above is nothing new. It basically just parrots the preamble to concept 1. How were you planning on licking the timing problem?
Jim
Jim Voege
Concept 5
Jim,
Since I do not have the graphics for illustration of Concept 3 -- I will approach your comment about Concept 5.
Basically, in Concept 5 what we are looking at is a "confederation" of games. They all share the same database & related records. The confederation would consist of:
How would the timing synchronization issue be solved? By adhering to a regimented turn schedule where each echelon (strategic, operational, tactical) would have a "window" for its turns to be conducted (via a "phase" type sequence). The strategic & operational phases would always occur. The tactical battle phase would always be scheduled but only triggered if the "major engagement" parameters were met (i.e., number of forces involved, location of the battle {some ground is more important than other ground}, & decision by the senior commanders to fight or withdrawal)
I have seen a number of simulations that approach the synchronization issue via running all things in real time & use all forces all the time. What always happens is Jim Voege's 6-week approach march followed by hours of intense action & decision making. The trade-off was never worth it and the developer's learned to structure the simulation for the good parts because the after-actions and learning transfer studies always showed that you don't get much from an extended road-march. Why practise being bored & miserable?
What we will need to do in Concept 5 is compress the various phases (strategic, operational, tactical) to those windows where decisions are made and the decisions are acted out in the randomness of interactive game play. That is what we all like to do .... get our stuff, make a plan, & fight it out. The turn sequencing needs to cut out as much of the transition pieces as possible. We don't need to march from Georgia to Virginia as part of the strategic phase -- just get there if that is the decision. We do need to march from Front Royal to Winchester if that is part of the operational plan because the "other guy" is moving, too. Hell he might beat us to the high ground & then a decision has to be made .... that is why we play.
Concept 5
John,
I'd like to explore a bit the notion of a strategic move from Georgia to Virginia without actually doing the marching. Does this mean that upon the appropriate orders being given in the strategic echelon those units moving north would basically disappear from operational/tactical maps until an appropriate interval had passed pending completion of the strategic move? Would then the player who made the strategic orders now be free to pursue other more active aspects of the game in places and situations entirely unconnected with the move from GA to VA? For example, suppose the only real action is happening in central TN. Could the Army Commander moving the GA troops to VA at the same time play the role of a Bde/Div commander guarding the approaches to Bowing Green? Is that in fact how interest is maintained -- by giving players something more interesting to do while their major responsibility is "pending"?
Should that be the case would their be some mechanism to return the troops moving strategically to operational/tactical control in the event their march was interdicted? What would happen if when those troops had (notionally) gotten as far as, say, SC a decision was made for them to counter-march because they were needed more in TN? Would there be a mechanism to tweak, revise or cancel strategic orders?
Would the mechanisms under discussion still not have to have some compression to allow for the fact that some battles might take 2 or 3 days but the majority lasted only 1 day meaning that a minimum of 1 turn and perhaps more turns must be devoted to a single day of historical time? Also, how do you handle sieges? After all, nobody in their right mind would want to realistically replicate the whole of the Petersburg siege yet the conditions triggering tactical play could very well be met.
Aside from the few details queried above, I guess what I'm asking is whether the centrepiece of the whole concept is a sort of "fire and forget until arrival" order for strategic play, freeing up chunks of player time and responsibility to fight more actively elsewhere?
One final question. I know you have great gobs of professional experience with these kinds of concepts. Has what we're discussing been done before successfully or would we need to proceed largely by trial and error? Is there a template available?
Jim
Jim Voege
Response to Comment on Concept 5
My responses are at ####.
JJ Sanders
----------------------------- extract -----------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to explore a bit the notion of a strategic move from Georgia to Virginia without actually doing the marching. Does this mean that upon the appropriate orders being given in the strategic echelon those units moving north would basically disappear from operational/tactical maps until an appropriate interval had passed pending completion of the strategic move?
#### - yes. The concept would that units in strategic movement would move outside the realm of the operational fight. There would be consideration of interdiction for RR & riverine movement based on known choke points. The question of interdiction for naval (blue water) movement/transport would be handled by the blockade rules as most interceptions before the modern era happened at the port of departure or port of destination (or surrounding waters). Historical examples of successful strategic movements for this model would include the movement of Burnside & Hooker's Corps from east to west, Longstreet's Corps RR movement to GA, the CSA Army of Mississippi movement in 1862 to flank the Union forces in TN, Wright's Corps sailing to DC to counter Early, etc
Would then the player who made the strategic orders now be free to pursue other more active aspects of the game in places and situations entirely unconnected with the move from GA to VA?
#### - absolutely. That is the intent. Free the player from the more mundane duties of military life. As I say when asked to go camping --- "I don't need practise being miserable"
For example, suppose the only real action is happening in central TN. Could the Army Commander moving the GA troops to VA at the same time play the role of a Bde/Div commander guarding the approaches to Bowing Green? Is that in fact how interest is maintained -- by giving players something more interesting to do while their major responsibility is "pending"?
#### - That is the intent. The flexibility of the design should allow the SecWar of the faction(s) to use a redundant system of assignment for all players so the opportunity for action is greater. However, caution would have to be observed that any player could get "max'ed out" on his available playing time if all his theaters & assignments get active at the same time.
Should that be the case would their be some mechanism to return the troops moving strategically to operational/tactical control in the event their march was interdicted? What would happen if when those troops had (notionally) gotten as far as, say, SC a decision was made for them to counter-march because they were needed more in TN? Would there be a mechanism to tweak, revise or cancel strategic orders?
#### - Yes. I believe I addressed interdiction in the answer to the first question. Based the distance & time involved in the strategic movement there would be a system of "way points" used to alter movement if needed. But the ability to change the direction of the movement would be restricted to reflect the era. RR movements would have to shift at known RR hubs due to track & available train rolling stock limitations. Riverine & Naval movements could only be altered at ports as there is no radio and once the ship sets sail ....
Would the mechanisms under discussion still not have to have some compression to allow for the fact that some battles might take 2 or 3 days but the majority lasted only 1 day meaning that a minimum of 1 turn and perhaps more turns must be devoted to a single day of historical time? Also, how do you handle sieges? After all, nobody in their right mind would want to realistically replicate the whole of the Petersburg siege yet the conditions triggering tactical play could very well be met.
#### - Still working on seiges. They are really a component of the operational battle because they occur when the tactical battle fails but the aggressor can still maintian position. Beauregard's brillant victory at Petersburg at the end of the mobility phase of the Overland Campaign forced the seige just like Johnson's work outside Atlanta (though we will never know what would have happened if Sherman had had to start a protracted seige). I do not think a seige would be a tactical echelon event -- those assaults to try to end a seige certainly would but not the actual seige craft.
#### - You have multiple points here. The standard tactical battle will be a one day sequence. I do not have the data handy but battles involving multiple days were the minority in 1861 & 1862. The tactical phase would set for a 2-3 turn procedure to simulate 6-10 hours of tactical combat in the same day. Due to rise of multiple day battles in 1863 & 1864, there will have to be a mechanism to allow that option as armies get more seasoned and the chain of command gets more durable to conduct extended tactical battles.
Aside from the few details queried above, I guess what I'm asking is whether the centrepiece of the whole concept is a sort of "fire and forget until arrival" order for strategic play, freeing up chunks of player time and responsibility to fight more actively elsewhere?
#### - yes.
One final question. I know you have great gobs of professional experience with these kinds of concepts. Has what we're discussing been done before successfully or would we need to proceed largely by trial and error? Is there a template available?
#### - Nothing that I can present (without running the risk of litigation ). But the concept is not proprietary. It would just have to be migrated to the game engine that is designed.
Addendum - breakdown of Principal ACW Battles & Seiges
Had to get a sensing of the "single-day" versus "multiple day" battle mix mentioned by Jim Voege.
Did a quick survey of all major actions listed in Jonathan Sutherland's Battles of the American Civil War and got these results:
74 major actions from all three theaters (East, West, Trans-Mississippi) from 1861 to 1865.
Addendum - breakdown of Principal Napoleonic Battles & Seiges
Did basically the same thing for French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, using the Appendix in Rothenberg's Art of War in the Age of Napoleon as a source.
There were 78 "battles" and 23 "sieges, assaults and blockades" listed.
Of the battles 58 were single day (74%) and 20 were multi-day (26%) so the math is generally consistent with the ACW for battles.
If you factor in the sieges then it changes to 57% single day and 43% multi-day.
If you divide the period into four roughly logical sections (to mirror the 4 years of ACW), the breakdown of single to multi-day battles is First Coalition 21-2, Second/Third Coalition 10-5, Fourth/Fifth Coalition 15-5, 1812 and on 13-8.
For what it is worth...
-Nick
re:Future Game Design
Jim,
Any distinction between Strategic and tactical time is artificial, and IMHO if we are going to totally revamp the system we should do away with it.
How it should work is that units just move. If they cross the edge of the tactical square they move to the next strategic square (assuming we keep that concept).
We can tweak some things. Maybe if there are no enemy present you have a greater movement rate. Or maybe introduce major roads that can be followed to increase movement.
That way there is no accordion effect where time speeds up or slows down depending on whether it is a tactical or strategic phase.
I'm sure this would introduce some complexities, but that is always the price of realism/detail vs. simplicity.
-Nick
re:Future Game Design
Nick,
OK, but if you still have a turn-based game and a couple of turns per week and each of those turns represents how long a unit could move in, say, a couple of hours (in order to provide reasonable tactical detail) then anything beyond a purely tactical simulation unavoidably takes a loooong time to play.
Also remember the old saying that war is made up of long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. That's the reality but for a game to work you have to avoid those long periods of boredom so there must be some compression. For example, consider playing out the march of the Grande Armee from Boulogne into Bavaria at the start of the 1805 campaign against the Austrians and Russians. It took about 6 weeks before the French were really in contact with the enemy. Even if a turn represents a full day you're still looking at replicating mile after mile of nothing but marching for some 20 weeks of real time. That's a problem the avoidance of which is the real trick for games like ours.
Jim
Jim Voege
re:Future Game Design
If concept 3 means what I think it means, then I think we could develop a system that allows for better a better transition between strategic/operational and tactical.
What I would like concept 3 to mean is that everybody in NWOL has a character. That character exists in one place and you see what they see. Tactical level maneuvers can only occur where there is a character present. If not you can only give operational orders and the finer points are handled by the computer.
If no characters are in contact with enemy forces there will be no need to run tactical turns. This would allow us to more easily hit the fast forward button to get to the primary campaigns. We won't get slowed up by minor skirmished between a couple brigades here or there.
If there are multiple campaigns occurring you would move at the slowest speed. However, i think if you are only commanding what you actually see, then we could probably run turns more frequently, since there is less burden on putting in orders.
-nick
re:Future Game Design
Nick,
I will confess that somewhere deep down I feel that we can put down to a failure of imagination our inability over the last 10 years to come up with a single game system that comprehensively covers all aspects of warfare in a realistic way. That said, I'm afraid that the idea you mention will still have severe problems. You say that we won't get bored because we can speed things up when only non-tactical play is involved and tactical play will only arise when a player "icon" is present at a fight. All other tactical fights would be resolved by the software engine alone.
The problem remains that the game board typically has hot spots eg. Northern Italy, Holland, NW Germany, Saxony/Bohemia etc. where, due to the increased likelihood of enemy contact you can expect to find high densities of player icons. For example, consider the campaign you and I fought in northern Germany in NWOL II. We had about half the players in the game crowded into about 2% of the map. Similar numbers would have arisen in Italy. Under the sort of system you're talking about you have to assume an effort would be made to distribute player icons in these small spaces in an optimal way in order to avoid relying on the computer to win your smaller fights for you against human enemy players. So in these high density areas you would expect to see player icons involved in most fights, both large and small with the larger ones being handled by the more experienced players with little assistance from their teammates (whose player icons would be located elsewhere, albeit nearby). This then means that we still have a speed problem. To look at it another way, you will recall that peace turns are rare animals because someone is always fighting somewhere. So too would these sped-up non-tactical turns be rare because someone will always be tactical somewhere. Then you have the additional problem that because very few people would be involved in any specific tactical fight, players could go months at a time between combats.
Something akin to this arises in another solution -- the introduction of tactical-only turns. I once played in a campaign where these were in place. The whole game (about 2 months of play) I never saw a single enemy unit in a tactical map. Some of my teammates did. But many had the same experience as I.
My own personal failure of imagination has led me to believe that the best way for HOLF as a whole to be comprehensive is to have a NWOL system, where everything is acceptably realistic except the tactical which is purposely abstracted, together with an entirely separate game system (which could be a converted NWOL system BTW) that provides only tactical -- simulations of a series of famous battles is generally successful in providing the junkies with their tactical "fix". :-)
So my feeling is that if HOLF, as a whole, can be comprehensive it matters not so much if it meets that goal via more than one game system. In other words it is better to have everything in two good games than to have everything in only one where there is a severe risk of losing the player base due to inactivity which I continue to believe to be likely with the solutions presented thus far.
One final comment. I understand that micromanagement can be a problem. However, isolating teammates from each other is not an appropriate way to fix it. You fix it by having *increased* contact between teammates ie. training, combined with vast flexibility in OOBs and unit assigns, to render micromanagement unnecessary.
Jim
Jim Voege
I would like to make a couple
I would like to make a couple of general points about what ever concepts get the nod for further development.
I think two big selling points for the game are the 2 turns a week and the international player base. Trying to squeeze more turns per week, would impact on the player to player communications. So I am leery of anything that would push the turnaround times any tighter, as it is I (and I am sure many other) get caught up in work and family and miss deadlines or important messages.
Personally I enjoy the strategic play with it’s alliances, resource management and long term planning. The operational play and it’s manoeuvring, and the tactical play with decisions on where and when to attack. So I don’t want to lose any aspect of the game.
A couple of points have been made about tactical play and levels of abstraction. I believe that there is a reasonable level of realism vs abstract at the moment. Perhaps something more elaborate could be developed to fit in with the turn cycles, but I question if it would add more to the play for the price imposed on the turn schedule. Isn’t there already issues around campaign seasons and the impact it has on nations at peace? The false urgency to ‘go to war’ so that you have some thing to do every turn. Perhaps that’s a point for consideration, can we make more of the campaign turns for neutrals ? Can they have peace options to build their economy or technology or ??? while their neighbours rashly use up their resources in battle ?
BTW: I like the ideas for tactical games on land & sea. Short defined battles played over a handful of weeks would be a lot of fun. Obviously I have enjoyed the Strategic scope of the game as well over the last few years, or I wouldn’t still be playing and watching the site for news.
re:I would like to make a couple
If we are going to segregate tactical and strategic movement into separate events I don't think it would be too much to ask of the player bases to set up a schedule where tactical turns are run in the days between strategic turns. Most of the time you will still only have two turns a week, but when the lead starts to fly the pace picks up a bit. You would still probably only average 2.25 turns a week, since you aren't in tactical combat all the time. It would reward thinking on your feet and probably the development of national doctrine, since you won't have as much time to carefully dissect every tactical situation independently.
I will strongly echo the need for a better system for neutrals. There should be a way to invest money to improve your economy or military. That would give you additional choices besides rushing into conflict to gain VPs.
-Nick
re:I would like to make a couple
To continue with Bekummer's and Nick's thoughts on neutrals, would it not be possible, without too much coding angst, for nations not at war with any other nation to pay only the inactive cost for units and ships and for neither to consume any supplies/stores? If we could do this then a nation not at war would get all the benefits of a peace turn, albeit more slowly, without interfering with the timing necessitated by the existence of a war somewhere else on the board.
For the reasons mentioned by others, we might be able to get ourselves out of the cycle in which winning the game requires you to be at war and stay at war. Perhaps we could generate viability for a strategy of winning via peace now in return for stronger prosecution of war later.
Also ISTM that if I am at war with one neighbour but another neighbour is at peace, I may feel compelled to make peace in order not to lose too much relative strength to the lurking sly guy. In other words it might come about that there are cycles of peace as well as of war. A good thing no?
The notion that, for example, Sweden cannot really reap the benefits of not being at war because Naples and Venice are skirmishing in the Med, might be the single greatest weakness in the current game.
Jim
Jim Voege
Thoughts on the
Thoughts on the thoughts.
Nick, schedule to run the tactical turns between strategic turns? Not a lot of scope for turnaround time is there ? With strategic turns on Monday & Thursday that leave Tuesday and Wednesday for tactical ie two turns of tactical battle. I would think that would be insufficient expansion on the game to add an extra round of emails. You would possibly need to move the strategic turns out to being weekly. And have more opportunity to manage the tactical battle with 3-5 turns. Even then perhaps some sort of default ‘defend and retire’ orders should be in place if a turn is missed.
Guys, and on neutrals, not only would it be good if there was some tangible benefit to staying out of the war as mentioned previously, but it would be nice if there was something for a neutral to ‘do’ in terms of their turn. Imagination defeats me bit here, but I am thinking of something like building infrastructure, exploring the map, spying on the warring nations, holding parades, building cannons and ships to sell to the warring nations, getting cut rate activation costs to get the troops up to 8 experience.
Bill.
Clarification on what is meant by "concept"
The concepts under discussion have no attachment or assumption to be a modification of any current game system.
These concepts are being offered for discussion for a future developmental effort beyond any system that is being worked on at present. That is what is meant by "Generation 3" game engines. These concepts will not be a modification of the current NWOL system or either of the two systems under development for CWOL.
These systems would be a new effort from the ground up. The only pieces of previous efforts used in them would be the historical research and modelling of unit behaviors/environmental conditions plus any analysis of technological advances.
The old BLADD/SAS system was Generation 1. The GITM/PATE/SOW suite is Generation 2.
These concepts are the start of the exploration for definition of specifications for the Generation 3 game system.
As such using any of the current material solutions from the NWOL suite or any other Gen 1 or Gen 2 game system would be premature at best or not applicable at worse.
Need everyone to think in ideal terms. Such as:
There are many more attributes & features that are being considered or should be considered before any constraints are applied. This discussion is sort of a call for ideas from the players base. So don't restrict your thinking prematurely. The constraints of reality do not apply except that any ideas have to grounded in available technologies (no chaos theory based AI, no biometric feedback, no satcom uplinks, etc).
Kudos...
I believe that every concept is certainly appealing and if there is anything that I can do to make it happen I am ready, willing and "able".