Games that model reality

A lot of people think of games as frivolous (hmm, must be the name) but they're really just conceptual models that we can use to explore an idea -- like scientific theories. As such they deserve to be taken seriously. Because you can get hands-on with a game, they work much better as educational tools than sitting students down and lecturing them. Here's one we did earlier.

A new book, Playing with Reality by Kelly Clancy, surveys game theory and how games have modelled the world (for example in wargames used by the military to train officers in strategy and tactics). The book criticizes simulation games for simplifying the real-life conditions they're modelling -- an odd perspective for a physics-trained writer like Kelly Clancy to take, perhaps, as she must be aware that scientists know their models are simplifications and also that those simplifications can still yield useful results. Look at Einstein's theories, for example.

More than that, every concept humans have is a simplification of reality. Complaining that errors in our mental models lead to incorrect conclusions is stating the obvious. The point is to look at the new data and refine the model accordingly. That's how we progress.

Still, it's interesting to reflect on how games are an integral part of the way we reason about the world, and how that means we've often shaped our behaviour around them.

Comments

  1. Well... have had long interest and a bunch of ideas about -- games that simulate Reality.

    To be exact -- of Process of History ITSELF.

    Would be glad to share a thought or two on that topic... if that'd be interesting to you. (shy)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's an old boardgame called Britannia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_(board_game) ) that supposedly simulates history, but we think it's fundamentally flawed because it rewards specific events that actually happened, eg Vikings occupying Dublin in a given decade. Clearly if we rewound time to 410 AD and ran it forward, very different events would occur, so a fruitful modelling of history in game terms should depict trends (like the boardgame Civilization does) rather than the events that randomly occurred in our reality. Let's call this hypothetical game Counterfactual.

      Delete
    2. Yeah. I know that dichotomy.

      It perfectly exist in more known to me world of computer strategies.

      There is perfectly TWO kinds of such games -- open-ended (like Civilization by Sid Meier) and scenario-based (Europa Universalis).

      I myself prefer open-ended.

      But... even if it proposes WIDER experience (like playing on whatever map you even can imagine, with whatever additional tweaks/changes).

      It have greatly lacking in what makes such games "more realistic" -- like diplomacy, recognizable historical background and etc...

      So... basic idea -- is it possible to make a better blend of that two worlds? :-)

      Delete
    3. Interesting question. I think it would be worth trying. What's interesting is to see when very different societies come up with similar solutions to similar socioeconomic situations. For example, both Japan and Western Europe developed feudal societies that had many features in common. The words "samurai" and "knight" even come from similar root meanings ("to serve"). It's like how duckbill shapes or sabre-shaped teeth have evolved repeatedly in different species throughout history. And why not -- they are mechanical solutions to a given problem.

      Once we build in the underlying rules of human societies and the physical rules involving resources and trade, it should be possible to generate a random map and see familiar patterns of trade, diplomacy, war, colonization, etc, emerge.

      Delete
    4. And Wikipedia gives quite comprehensive... but hardly interesting for us here.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_dynamics

      Delete
    5. Well... there is.


      Worlds: A History Simulator
      Reddit · r/worldhistorysim
      1.9K+ followers
      r/worldhistorysim: Worlds is a history simulation game in development where you can create earth-like planets and see how human populations grow…

      And it even give such a starry eyes responses:

      This game is amazing
      u/R3TR0_ASSASS1N

      1 yr. ago
      This game is amazing

      I don't post much on here but I refound this game again, and ik it's been on hiatus for a while but maybe I'm just a 16 yo history and simulation nerd but I absolutely love the idea for this game and the potential it could have.

      Like, this is an idea I've always wondered like if a game could pull this off before, literally an entire history simulator but even the framework this has already and what it does, it does extremely well.


      Well... I was similar... couple decades ago. And I still have that urge in me, I think. :-)

      Delete
  2. I love the idea of Dr Tardigrade's History Simulator, but obviously to model that as a boardgame requires pruning it right back to the most fundamental "forces" at work in the development of human societies. But after all, every game is an abstraction and boardgames are that to the Nth degree.

    Boardgames can be useful in teaching history too. I read about a teacher who got his 4th grade students to play a game of feudal states. After a while one of the boys realized he couldn't expand his lands any further as he had powerful neighbors on all sides. So he went to one of the girls who also had extensive lands, explained his idea, and they announced they (well, their characters in the game) were getting married. From first principles they'd discovered a major exploit in feudal society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well... I do not see ANY way how to integrate something so sophisticated into board game gaming experience...

      without using some smartphones/ipads to run some calculators.

      Or even something more advanced... like Augmented Reality.

      Which would make it computer game... ;-P

      Well... today "table games" can use something like MS Surface (not advertising). Or... some regular wall-mounted TVs.

      Delete
    2. \\After a while one of the boys realized he couldn't expand his lands any further as he had powerful neighbors on all sides. So he went to one of the girls who also had extensive lands, explained his idea, and they announced they (well, their characters in the game) were getting married. From first principles they'd discovered a major exploit in feudal society.

      TOTALLY!

      Experience I would like to see in a strategic (computer) game. :-)

      To use games for better understanding (current) the World.

      Delete
    3. I'm all for that. I spent 30 years in PC game development and one of the games I was keen to do was a simulation of phenotypes that the player could breed & train to create teams of nonhuman gladiators:

      https://fabledlands.blogspot.com/2013/07/mean-genes-part-1.html
      https://fabledlands.blogspot.com/2013/07/mean-genes-part-2.html

      Also one that played around with emergent behaviors:

      https://fabledlands.blogspot.com/2023/03/dalek-city.html

      (That one would be so easy with modern AI, but I was pitching it in the late 1990s.)

      It's a lot harder (basically impossible!) to do a full human society sim in boardgame form, but prototyping for a game like that could be almost as simple a level as a boardgame. The trick is to figure out the broad drivers of societies -- first access to animals you can hunt, then the development of domestication and agriculture, the need for building materials for shelter (and later for defence), living room, then building roads to shorten lines of supply and communication, mining to make weapons, etc.

      What would be fascinating would be to model all that and be able to move coastlines and migration grounds and climate conditions and see how that affects the typical size and volatility of civilizations.

      Maybe also the ability to start the game with different human species and tweak their genes for cooperation vs competition to see which thrives. We could see whether homo sapiens prevailed against neanderthals because they out-competed them for resources, out-bred them, or whether they likely exterminated them in warfare.

      It's a massive project!

      Delete
    4. \\It's a lot harder (basically impossible!) to do a full human society sim in boardgame form, but prototyping for a game like that could be almost as simple a level as a boardgame.

      But that... would be a hindrance on later stages. (that is about my other anonimous comment under other post -- about using floating points)

      If you'll permit, I'll try to unwind here my thought process about -- how to make games like Civilization(tm) to be more realistic. As you know it based on that same board game experience (game "Risk"?). And I saw numerous tries to make it "more advance". And that in a step preclude need to add "management of resources". You know, that to build/train 1 soldier 10 units of food and 1 unit of wood needed... or something. And that... later... becomes a stumbling block on a stage of balancing gameplay.

      Like... let's assume we have basic warriors. And assigned to em attack strength 1. But... later in a game, when we added lots and lots of other types... it became apparent, that that "strength one" makes em too weak, to a level of being useless. And only possible way -- bestow em with attack strength 2... but then, it would tilt the balance even more, or in some other place.

      While just attack strength 1.1 would be just enough and would save it all...

      Delete
    5. \\The trick is to figure out the broad drivers of societies -- first access to animals you can hunt, then the development of domestication and agriculture, the need for building materials for shelter (and later for defence), living room, then building roads to shorten lines of supply and communication, mining to make weapons, etc.

      Yep.

      Management of resources.



      \\What would be fascinating would be to model all that and be able to move coastlines and migration grounds and climate conditions and see how that affects the typical size and volatility of civilizations.

      That's it!

      That would be "modifiers" that would naturally be on a level of 0.1... 0.01 or 0.001.
      That then would be used in formula to influence other parameters -- this or that way.


      \\Maybe also the ability to start the game with different human species and tweak their genes for cooperation vs competition to see which thrives. We could see whether homo sapiens prevailed against neanderthals because they out-competed them for resources, out-bred them, or whether they likely exterminated them in warfare.

      That would need... even more flexible and versatile engine of that game...

      and as that -- natural numbers is NO GO.

      Delete
    6. \\It's a massive project!

      Well... by modern standards.

      When they making copies of whole cities. And fotorealistic personages with correct facial expressions... habitually.

      So then that game staggering even on most monstrous modern gaming computers... %^)))

      Don't think so. B-)

      Delete
    7. Like here.

      And surely you remember how it looked in old time. :-)

      Delete
    8. From this article -- https://blakestephenanderson.medium.com/historical-simulation-games-the-good-and-the-not-so-good-edf0943dd333

      ""
      History has been a life-long passion and, unlike most interests, I can trace it back to a single event: playing the video game Civilization III as a child. The mythic characters that stood as synecdoches for civilizations enthralled me. Ever since playing that game, I’ve indulged in untold hours of reading academic books, parsing through primary documents, and even contemplated getting a Ph.D. in medieval Roman (Byzantine) history.
      ""

      Delete
    9. I always say that game design is the study of everything :-)

      Re prototyping in boardgame form -- certainly that couldn't become the finished game, but all prototypes should be intended to be junked. The point is what we learn from them. For example, the Civilization boardgame (which was converted into an early PC game called Incunabula) gives us a useful framework for how resources could be collected and developed and incorporated into a tech tree. We might then use that concept as the skeleton of the design for the full game, but as you say with a lot more differentiation of quality. We can have mines with efficiency yields of 0.65 or whatever (where 1 just means you have to bend down and pick up a piece of iron ore that's lying on the ground).

      Re the scale of the project, I'm thinking more of the scope of the design rather than the ability of the machine to crunch the numbers. We need to model resource collection, technology across multiple fields, climate, transport, weapons and armor, religion, tribal/national identity, tactical developments (ie combined arms theory), politics, signaling, economics... This would be fun to do, but to tackle it properly I'd like to have a team of consultants who are expert in their fields. We need to hire that history Ph.D. -- in fact a bunch of them.

      Delete
    10. \\Re the scale of the project, I'm thinking more of the scope of the design rather than the ability of the machine to crunch the numbers.

      Totally my concerns.


      \\We need to model resource collection, technology across multiple fields, climate, transport, weapons and armor, religion, tribal/national identity, tactical developments (ie combined arms theory), politics, signaling, economics...

      Well... I can give you my idea. And you are free to criticize it. Or poo-pooh from get go. ;-)

      As I said, I observed several tries to make "more advanced Civ". As from known alternatives (that same Europa Universalis and etc), as from some obscure tries of different people.

      And found that biggest problem is in a unsteady/untidy junction between battle and economy systems.

      Really... even as simple as in Civ (just a three numbers/parameters attack/defense/moves) battle system is -- it still allows to depict quite complex military strategies (though, still, quite poor on a tactical side)... though, I myself eternally appalled by "tank failing to stampede mere phalanx" bug/feature.

      But when it comes to matching it with economy... it do not add up at all. Like... taking into account demography -- how many health man, who can be drafted? what their moral will be? who will be caring about their fields? and from what granaries they will be fed while on duty, or over seas?

      That all thing that are totally missing in that place. In the rift between battle and economy system of pretty much every game I ever knew.

      So... my idea is work from OPPOSITE. To make battle AND economy system grow from one root.

      And first assumption in the base of it -- natural demography.

      No more obscure "town of level development N" -- only "village with N inhabitants (men, women, children together)"

      I bet there is ready made formula -- how many men need to stay alive/can be drafted -- that developed by scientists. Or... we always can take some real world common sense assumption.

      To say "there is no men remains in a village, so villagers either hide/dispersed or was enslaved killed by... vikings for example"

      Delete
    11. \\This would be fun to do, but to tackle it properly I'd like to have a team of consultants who are expert in their fields. We need to hire that history Ph.D. -- in fact a bunch of them.

      Well... and there is a way for them to make a bang for the buck...

      do you know what "koku" mean in Japanese? in Japan's history/culture.

      Meaning of Koku : r/ShogunTVShow
      Reddit · r/ShogunTVShow
      40+ comments · 4 months ago
      1 koku is about 330 lbs of rice. Koku was a "standardized" unit of measurement and currency in feudal Japan which was roughly equivalent to feed one person for a year....

      That gave me an insight -- what if ALL in-game measures would be of that SAME measure.

      Really... as you can see (or you can investigate it for yourself) -- that One Koku -- it's the same time is a measure of -- weight , volume... and even natural monetary measure. And also -- it roughly a one man size to boot -- isn't it convenient?

      That way ALL in-game logistical and monetary values -- can be simplified. And/or provided to that said specialists (or just a hobbists/modders on alpha or beta stage of development) to play with modifiers to make em more suiting their needs.

      While we can write up tasks for programmers to make: "average trooper", "average carriage", "average boat" and even "average house/castle"...

      with much simplified formulas. That do not need tedious borderline cases checking. Like "I added to a tech tree a canoe as basic maritime transport... and now I need to prevent users from using it to transport a full-equipped knight in armor and mounted". ;-P

      Delete
    12. I remember (many years ago now) using koku as the basis for exactly this kind of estimate. It's a useful start, though of course we also need to know the timing of when troops are levied. You don't want to miss the planting or the harvest, so you'd rather fight your battles between those key times. If you keep troops in the field longer, to what extent can the women, children and old people do the job of the absent men of fighting age? But once we know the potential crop yield (which will be a function of acreage, land quality, faming methods, manpower/livestock and weather) we can derive the population size a given area can support.

      Delete
    13. Bear in mind that historically the monetary value of koku (what you could buy once people were fed) varied enormously depending on the crop yield across the country for that year. Also there was only so much storage capacity for surplus rice, so a good harvest didn't necessarily mean a lasting advantage.

      Delete
    14. \\I remember (many years ago now) using koku as the basis for exactly this kind of estimate. It's a useful start, though of course we also need to know the timing of when troops are levied. You don't want to miss the planting or the harvest, so you'd rather fight your battles between those key times. If you keep troops in the field longer, to what extent can the women, children and old people do the job of the absent men of fighting age?

      That's another story...

      do we start discussing timing mode of our game? ;-)

      There is multitude of choices. And all that what you say -- will depend on design time decisions made.

      But well... that is damn complicated matters. So, I would start from something simpler -- geography and movements on the map. ;-)

      Delete
    15. \\Bear in mind that historically the monetary value of koku (what you could buy once people were fed) varied enormously depending on the crop yield across the country for that year.

      And that is NOT bug... that is FEATURE... as programmers do say.

      That means that we'll have healthy and realistic Economy model in our game. ;-)

      That... which other games need to model with late additions/tweaks. Or postpone it right away. Even in a game that proclaim modeling history and economy.

      And by the way -- that'll be natural limit for starting wars. And additionally -- to define diplomacy. As it usual was in history -- kings become more eager to discuss things ONLY when they start loosing, to a level they unable to continue war(s) physically.

      And what I propose to insert here -- remove precise awareness of a King(player) about his kingdom resources. ;-)

      That would be realistic.

      Delete
    16. \\ kings become more eager to discuss things ONLY when they start loosing, to a level they unable to continue war(s) physically.

      That turns Clausewitz's famous dictum on its head: "political intercourse is a continuation of war, carried on by other means." I like it!

      \\ remove precise awareness of a King(player) about his kingdom resources

      Which is why historically kings (and other ruling bodies) ordered surveys, inventories and censuses to try and keep tabs on exactly what they had. As a result, a good civil service greatly amplifies a state's ability to grow.

      Delete
    17. And well... it could, in my opinion, eliminate very nasty thing that most of strategies do rely on -- using random numbers to define results of battles and all kinds of random event.

      While I perfectly aware that randomness and probabilities is inevitable and realistic... but. In usual computer game setup -- it works purely one-sided -- to create more hindrances (and irritation) for a player. While same time so-called AI opponent NOT affected by it. And even if that is game between human players... it only eliminate chances for tactical/strategical cunningness...


      Delete
    18. \\That turns Clausewitz's famous dictum on its head: "political intercourse is a continuation of war, carried on by other means." I like it!

      Well... in Reality, demonstration of military power used for intimidation in case of diplomatic efforts...

      But to make it work in game... tough lack.

      AI opponent -- cannot be intimidated.

      And to make that to human opponent -- there is usually NO in-game infrastructure for something like that. Like ability of spies to reveal military preparation as well as counter-play -- to fake such preparations and demonstrate power where it none... well, in all accordance with Sun Tzu.

      So... practically half... bigger half of what Real World strategy consist off -- play and counter-play of mind and spycraft. Remains totally outside of scope of "strategic" games. :-(((

      Delete
  3. I've just been listening to this and there are several important takeaways:

    https://timharford.com/2024/04/cautionary-tales-blood-and-gold-with-dan-snow/

    Firstly that wars are often fought to decide succession (eg Hundred Years War) or to restructure a state politically (civil wars, revolutions).

    More importantly that fighting strength is not reducible to a number. Obviously in order to abstractify it for simulation purposes there needs to be a function involving factors like manpower, equipment, training, morale, etc. (And many of those also dependent on multiple factors, eg deployable manpower is a function of numbers, health, food supplies.)

    But the combat can't just be a comparison of numbers because the "raw fighting strength" is also modified by tactics and the military culture discussed in the podcast. There could be military cultures A, B, C such that A counts as a modifier of *2 vs B but B is *2 vs C and C is *2 vs A. Hence situations like Crécy or the overwhelming superiority of the Conquistadores vs the Inca -- not just because of tech (gunpowder) but because the Inca idea of ritualized warfare can't win against a total war policy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. \\Firstly that wars are often fought to decide succession (eg Hundred Years War) or to restructure a state politically (civil wars, revolutions).

      Yeah.

      That's now talk about game from player(s) perspective.

      And well... that is what I'd like to see in our game too -- more flexibility in that -- how players could play in such game. ;-)

      I mean... more like that board gaming experience you provided as example above.


      \\More importantly that fighting strength is not reducible to a number.

      Of course!

      That'd be... AND unrealistic... AND uninteresting, if only pure "strength in numbers" would decide everything...


      \\There could be military cultures...

      ABSOLUTELY!

      But for that... there need to be a place for military tactic.
      Because otherwise, that would mean only stupid "race modifiers"... that would quickly lost any meaning/interest for a player.



      Delete
    2. Military culture would not only have to reflect the effectiveness of one army against another, but also how adaptable an army's culture was following a catastrophic defeat. That probably links to the adaptability of the civilization's wider culture -- democracies generally more adaptable than autocracies, for example. IIRC the Civilization boardgame includes a social tree alongside its tech tree.

      What does the player do in a game like this? I favor broad definitions of "game" so I'd be content to be able to tune variables like climate, geography, etc and just watch the effects. It's the ultimate god game.

      Delete
    3. Yes.

      Totally my idea toward difference between professional army and militia/recruits -- level of KIA after which rows can broke and troops start to flee.

      Which opens door for a battlefield-level military tactics (and counter-tactics) -- to attack weaker troops with stronger ones. To achieve victory through momentum instead of dull force.

      And for that... there is need to be "military traditions" -- not just in a name only, but as some carefully developed facilities/preferred types of weapon and yes... military tactics.

      Do you know/heard about Slithering game company?
      Their games (Spartans exactly) provide very detailed and vivid experience of an ancient battlefields. And that difference in troops morale, as well as importance of wise arrangement of an army on a battlefield.

      Delete
    4. \\What does the player do in a game like this? I favor broad definitions of "game" so I'd be content to be able to tune variables like climate, geography, etc and just watch the effects. It's the ultimate god game.

      Yes.

      I'll open my cards here. Maybe prematurely. But if I'd try to prolong it, I feel that it could look like I hiding something. :-/

      I started this conversation because I already have pet peeve of mine -- inaptness of currently available so-called strategic games (computer games first of all) to fulfill that "promise" of "ultimate god game".

      :-((((

      Especially disappointing experience of so-called Multiplayer Strategies.

      So... idea came to my mind, to which I still seeking for resolve. :-)

      What if there'd be Massively Multiplayer Strategic game?

      But not of that usual kind as we already have -- where player tied up to some special identity/personage. Which, as practice showing -- makes gameplay very limiting (like in that Multiplayer games -- where ALL players need to be present on-line, most of the time... for that game to be playable).

      What if allow *fluency* of it?

      For people/players to NOT be tied to a specific nation/country/tribe in a game. For all of em, for all of the time. With need to manage WHOLE kingdom as supreme and all-knowing King. Which looks exciting, at first... but quickly became tedious and boring (especially when longly developed situation which propose interesting developments... became thwarted -- because opponent lost interest and departed from game).

      So... what if rules of such games would allow much more fine-grained entertainment/involvement into game process? Allowing for a player to enter that game world for a shorter and more predictable time. As General, Merchant, Builder, Strategist and whatever other role would be possible.
      To play not from beginning and till the end, but taking part only partly -- give his attention and passion to that side of the whole story. To feel oneself like in real historical situation.

      Because... for example, Merchants of all times was keeping trades even in time of war. Even though that was risky... but promising bigger profits. And as well, initial spycraft -- was based on what such traveling merchants could see and report to their governments.

      Delete
    5. Think about it -- what a wide possibilities it opens.

      For example:

      King sends General to thwart rebellious town. But merchants of that town come to that General and propose a bribe to him -- for joining with rebels. That is purely impossible in any other game, where player are that King and that General and that Merchant...

      Or... some merchant traveling over seas and finding new tribe, and showing such a perfect service to em, that chief of that tribe proposing his daughter to him, which obviously promotes that merchant into a King.

      Or... some Knight without Heirloom, organize his band and roaming across some rural place. Well, it is usual thing in strategy game -- to add some roaming hordes of barbarians. But that is mostly some random event. Or some scripted-in element of scenario. And cannot provide much entertainment. Are mostly annoying.

      Delete
    6. And yes.

      Such a game just need to have quite developed design.(gradually developed... for example, from ancient time when military units could be quite simplified, without armor and special weapon, battle formation, fortification... even morale... and then in a process of game/game development, add such feature little by little)

      For that Generals and Merchants and Etc... to have what to play with: troops with cultural traditions, morale and different equipment; developed economy, with different goods and trade routs for merchants to do their job.

      And better if it all will be not just separate scripts/scenarios, but parts of the same realm. So then, merchants could receive order from generals to buy some elephants... or fine horses, or some rare metals for a weapon.

      And generals in their stead could try to fulfill request from that merchants -- like to destroy some puny concurrents. ;-)

      Delete
    7. One of the problems with S&T games is that they generally assume somebody is in absolute control of each nation/empire/army. Of course they have to if each player is controlling one empire, but the reality is that often emperors have been weak and different factions control different aspects of government.

      A game we discussed at Eidos in the late 1990s was to have a WW2 game (or rather, a series of connected games) where some players took the role of platoon commanders, all the way up to some players as the generals and the politicians. If you could see at the grand strategic level that a battle was going to happen, that would be flagged to take place at a certain time (probably subdivided into sub-battles, think of Hougoumont in relation to Waterloo) and if individual soldier players didn't turn up then AI would run their characters' units.

      There would even be a side benefit: every participant in a game like that would be pre-trained for when an aggressive despot tried to invade their country in real life.

      Delete
    8. Yes.

      Though there is big landmine field around that place -- how to make that game -- interesting for ordinary players.

      It need VERY careful analysis and balancing.

      That is only in Reality all people bound (more or less) to that places and roles they need to play in a society. But gamers are very fickle being -- if only pushed too much into displeased state -- they will just runaway... :-)

      So... I thought about such a grandiose scenarios too. But it better be postponed... for a long-long time, if not forever.

      Delete
    9. It would cater for all types of players. Some just want an hour's shoot-'em-up action, others are willing to ponder moves for days, others want to immerse themselves totally in the game. There are roles here for each of those. Not only that, but as in life you would get reporters -- players who take the time to record and curate the deliberations of the strategic-level players and report them to the casual players (or even to people who don't want to actively participate but simply be spectators).

      From a commercial viewpoint it would have to be tied to a known IP. Something to pitch to Disney as a massively-massively multiplayer online Star Wars or Marvel Universe game, perhaps.

      Delete
    10. Bingo!

      But... you forgot about one certain type of players. ;-)

      Gods(modders). ;-P

      Ones who would be bestowed with choices of creation of The World... and then, curating it in a process. ;-P

      (well... that can be prominent personalities or even big firms... like imagine -- a world where'd continents would be in a form of word Coca-Cola)

      Kidding.

      (or not :-))

      Delete
    11. Who knows...

      Delete
    12. All question -- engine of such game.

      That would not break (I mean, conceptually) from such an overstretching...

      while from point of view of modern computations... that would be a childs play.

      Couple PETAFLOPS to calculate next turn???

      Pft. Easy!

      Something... that could be a big problem... in 90th.

      Delete
    13. You don't even need to create the whole game from scratch, just build the top-level layer. When there's a battle, players would use an existing multiplayer tactical game, which would be modded to decide its combat results based on the results of multiplayer squad-level/shoot-em-ups, which would comprise the bottom layer of the whole system. The battle outcome would then be fed to the top layer which would set resources, units, etc, for future battles.

      Delete
    14. Sorry... I am programmer. And do not see anything like that possible. Sigh.

      Theoretically, it should be possible -- but never do.

      The best what my kin -- programmers, was able to accomplish is things like Unity 3D... but even if it looks like working, it can be used only for very simple games from scratch. And something more advanced (like that DrTardigrade above did) needs A LOT of work. Practically the same lot, as to make it from bare minimum.

      Sigh.

      Delete
    15. It doesn't have to be done in software. Most strategy & tactics games have configurable starting conditions, and many come with the tools to design your own levels. So if the strategic level game shows that the XXV Armee-Korps is about to engage the US 8th Infantry, we just need to set that up as the order of battle in a tactical-level game, play that, and use the outcome to update the map in the master game.

      Delete
    16. And how to merge it on conceptual levels?

      In some games there is abstract "military units". In other, it like per capita individual soldiers on a battlefield. With own algorithms and modifiers...

      Delete
  4. I ought to add that the phrase I heard most often from coders during my game dev career was "That isn't possible". But, a bit like Scotty on the Enterprise, they often did it anyway :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well... that is true. Kinda.

      And that is the reason why software is such a pile of unintelligible mess... :-))))))

      Delete
    2. Like in that anecdote "And who by your opinion... created Chaos". :-))))

      Delete
    3. For example.

      How do you start counting thing? Isn't it... zero, one, two, three... oh, no. :-) That is... one, two, three -- how sane people do it. ;-P
      Or... how you do arithmetic? Do you multiply first and then add, or you add and then multiply? ;-P
      And that is not just in different systems/programs... that can be inside one and the same system/program. %^))))

      But, well... that is simplest things. I even not started with any abstractions yet. Like in your everyday life -- what you do after printing some document? You putting it into some file, and then putting it into a drawer, isn't it?
      But there is programmers (and that is not some lame anecdote or inner joke, that is my personal absolutely direct experience) that decide that best place for a file -- inside document... and drawer is inside that file. ;-P
      Because... that is just a names. For anything programmers talk about. Deciding to make in their programs.

      And that is only first five seconds... of falling into that rabbit hole.

      Delete
  5. And how many games you know? Participated it?

    That allow such thing, as by this link -- https://resobscura.substack.com/p/historical-maps-probably-helped-cause

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Professor Breen's article on using LLMs to create educational games (https://resobscura.substack.com/p/llm-based-educational-games-will ) makes me think we just need to wait a couple of years, then get the latest version of GPT to read Guns, Germs & Steel, Sapiens, The Evolution of Society and The Art of War in the Western World and tell it, "Now make the game."

      Delete
    2. Khm. :-)))

      For it to answer "42"? ;-P

      Delete
  6. There is yet one important question... without which it all moot point.

    And that is villages/towns system -- that must be backbone of that system. Because that all: troops number, merchants proves, cultural values and achievements -- can be defined only through it.

    Have some ideas? Experience with modelling it? Interest to discuss?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My game Warrior Kings ended up as an RTS, but when I first took the job the game was going to be called Plague and at that stage it was supposed to be "medieval SimCity". I had masses of source material and equations for crop yield, birth and death rates, disease, etc. Even as an RTS it took several years to finish it. I didn't learn my lesson because at about the same time I was designing a complete simulation of geopolitics and warfare in the year 2020 -- at that time twenty years in the future!

      Delete
    2. So... you must be saw same field of landmines as I do?

      Well... in respect to scale it up into something bigger... like Massive Multiplayer Strategy, for example...

      I mean two concurrent demand -- make such a complex model ticking... while same time keeping it simple enough and interesting -- to make that fickle being, players to play it. ;-)

      Delete
    3. Well... I'm ready to provide my idea, for you to criticize.

      I saw immediate problem, in that all get-up -- Massive Multiplayer Yahoo!!! Strategy. :-) Myself.

      And that is... usual 4X modus operandi of any ordinary strategic game. You know -- "4X (abbreviation of Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate)". With same ordinary problems in practically all of em. And that is -- mismatching opponents.

      Because that 4X have built on idea of eXponential growth of resources, capabilities, forces available for player in-game. And that works perfectly fine (well, not at all) while that is computer game where human player(s) VS computer opponent. So-called AI.

      And more-less workable in a PvP tournaments... but only when/if all opponents started simultaneously, in equal conditions, and have equal skills.

      But Massive Multiplayer -- it's totally opposite mode of playing. Which preclude that many people, with great difference in skills, time spent in-game, playing preferences... must find a place for themself.

      Delete
    4. And answer is obvious, isn't it? ;-)

      To make it homeostatic.

      To push it all in some analogue of Dark Ages. Where there is no free lunches like "all I need -- grab Gunpowder, and make submit EM ALL, Bua-ha-ha!".

      And that mean (for what people would play such stagnant game, if there NO swift and decisive defeats possible?) to change goals of the game -- from hollow domination... and into cooperation.

      With increasing importance of cultural diversity and cross-culture connections: trade(work for merchants), exchange of information, cultural fusion.

      Delete
    5. It's ambitious, that's for sure. Not to put you off, but I spent all of last year on a truly massive MMO that was supposed to be built around an invented world with materials, physics, biology, etc driving the development of societies. We talked about 4X a lot.

      The advantage is that we didn't need too much in the way of socioeconomics, just the core rules, figuring that the players themselves would develop communities, defences, trade deals, and so on.

      All of this was based on blockchain resources. At the start of the project (2021) that was hot news and investors were falling over each other to fund it. By early this year investors were in full flight and the game was canned. the team have all gone off to other projects :-(

      So... the further you can get a game like this without investment, even just in paper design or simple component prototypes, the better. And then I think it has to be spliced to an existing big IP like Lord of the Rings because that way there's a built-in market and plenty of confidence from backers.

      Delete
    6. No man's land? :-)


      \\figuring that the players themselves would develop communities, defences, trade deals, and so on.

      Players... not only fickle, but very LAZY beings too. ;-P
      Still... they come to play because of entertainment. Not just another type of work...


      \\All of this was based on blockchain resources.

      Yeah... design based on buzzwords...



      \\So... the further you can get a game like this without investment, even just in paper design or simple component prototypes, the better.

      As for me... I feel that artistic side of such game is much more problematic. You know -- narrative-based design.

      That thing... I do not see in my mind. (sad)

      Civilization by Sid Meier would be suiting... but it, pretty much closed IP (even though it around common sense ideas).

      Delete
    7. So... what story it need to be? What beginning words... must be in the intro to it?

      That is... where it all starts.

      But I... have only sketches of what can be in-between... and closer to an end.

      I think about a ways to make it more richer. Adding more roles. Like in addition to usual Generals and Merchants, mundane Builders... to add some Religious Leaders.
      Which could influence masses of people. Increase loyalty. Facilitate culture building.

      And on that base... add some intrinsic spying and intrigues.
      With having such a rich background (with armies in garrisons, and in the field, merchants wandering here and there, some sneaky religious preachers trying to prozelite among new folks) it would be not some scripts and scenarios -- but some close to reality... activity.

      And I bet on that it being what people would like to spend much time. As that is what people doing almost all time. Gossiping. Sneaking. Meddling into other people business. ;-)

      Delete
    8. Basicly... that is idea of merging game... and social network.

      Because -- how do you think all that management of in-game countries could be... with such complexity.

      Several Generals. Several Merchants. King, Builder, Religious Leader(s?)

      In each of em.

      Even if that'll be mostly ronins/mecenaries. A lot of things should be happening there. Encouraging inter-communication. As in-game. As well as around it.

      Add to that some "Greatest King of All Times" titles. Scenarios close to historic... or opposite, some other custom built world.

      There is by all means good examples of such games... though on smaller tactical plane.

      Games... in which not children or students playing happily. But fully grown man. Man with money too. ;-)

      Have you heard about World of Tanks?

      Delete
    9. And I bet that that us viable... no, damn interesting "selling points": to attract older auditory... and to make em involved into socnet. ;-)

      Delete
  7. Ideally you'd want roles like religious leaders to emerge from more fundamental rules of culture. If you have to specify everything like that it's a design process that will never end, and/or it won't allow for concepts we haven't yet seen. Religion among other things enables a society to have a single shared identity over a very large number of individuals, many more than would occur in a single tribe. But then you have a priesthood developing which claims to know what the gods want, and that puts them into conflict with secular powers like the king. I'd like to see those being structures that players would figure out for themselves -- though you would have to build in an actual advantage to everyone professing the same religion (morale in warfare, social cohesion, etc) and those same benefits would also apply to non-supernatural ideologies such as democracy.

    Not every player will want to bother with all the ramifications of the rules. But that's just like real life. Most people just want to grow their crops, have a nice house, raise a family. A few people notice that the rules contain the possibility to create religions or organize taxation to build infrastructure, and those people take the role of leaders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. \\Ideally you'd want roles like religious leaders to emerge from more fundamental rules of culture.

      Well... in my opinion. While people living in a villages... there is pretty much nothing that differentiate. Or... that differences are natural (like what type of game they hunting for, do they know fishing, what their homes made off).

      But when there appear towns... things became much more complicated. And that role I called here "religious leaders" devised by me to govern over that more complex and diverse social structure of the towns... yeah, it all painted with wide brush. But that is deliberate, as it would be unwise to propose some rigid structure here.

      Delete
    2. \\If you have to specify everything like that it's a design process that will never end, and/or it won't allow for concepts we haven't yet seen.

      Well... I see it as appearing naturally from one to another.

      I started my researches from -- how to make more interesting, more challenging AI. And found that sneaky programmers/game-designers instead of trying to make one -- which would know about rules of that game and utilizing em, just making some hacks. Sometime even bending that rules into a pretzel hacks.

      Well... as fellow programmer I do not want to loathe em for that -- as I understand how hard that task, and how pressuring are deadlines.

      So... I immediately stumbled uppon a fact -- that challenging gameplay can be achieved ONLY in PvP games. So... I started looking more closely into Multiplayer games.

      But, quickly found that there is its own problem -- that same, that people enter game in different time, play different amount of time, have differ skills. Which create problem of its own -- and all kinds of ugly hacks to mitigate that problems (like to not allow "older" more pumped up players to kill newbies).

      And that is that moment, when idea of "what if to split/separate monolithic but hard to manage role of a player as All-Knowing King-God... into more fine structure".

      And after starting like this I immediately saw that it -- worthy. Just imagine some Mercenary Generals, that would engage in battles, to which more persistent rulers -- Kings, would send em. It would be and realistic, and more fun... as there'd be more battles and skirmishes possible.

      Like. King can hire several Generals. And place em into distant towns on the borders. Giving em power over local garrisons.

      Delete
    3. But... as it immediately can be seen -- that schema are greatly unbalanced. What fun for a King to just order some random Generals? What reasons for Generals to keep their loyalty and listen to that orders?

      And in general... if there is so many Kings and Generals -- it will be perpetual wars. And where there resources for that wars? Scripted-in? Added in accordance with some obscure algorithm?

      Well, I know from my own experience -- it is not interesting game where it just shown to you via some markers and numbers on the panel, but you have no clue what it mean, and oftenly -- even prohibited to change anything for good(phenomena of Master of Orion III... after previous two extremely playable/likable versions)

      But well... if that is a game in Civ-like setting -- it means it must be more like it was in history itself.

      Aha!

      That means there need to be some "peace time" development too. In opposite to "war time". And that'll be Merchants -- to trade between different nations, and Builders -- to develop that towns, building up facilities important for whole country: ports, fortresses, mines.

      That way it looks like naturally developing into more Cooperative-style game. Big country would have need more of that generals, merchants, builders. And it should give a chance to develop such a country to an empire state.

      And that... looks like not that bad of incentive, to play such game.

      As for "supreme ruler", that would impersonate that King gonna be Emperor... as for all that generals and merchants.
      As that is one story, when you enter game to have some casual battles here and there. But then... it is not remembered, not written-in into some log... for at least.

      And totally another story -- if you fighting for something bigger. For a thing that have history. And that history depends on what you once did -- won in battle, or lost. Found new markets and earned some profit. Or got busted.

      Delete
    4. But then... there arise balancing problems of it's own -- how to make in-game or around game communication. Make it interesting and engaging for people -- to cooperate.

      For around game communication -- it looks natural to create a socnet -- players not just having their accounts, but also able to send private messages, have a place to discuss things openly. Organize teams. Recruit others.

      And in-game... there need to be tangible means of how people can influence each other role. Ways to make it interesting to cooperate (like, merchants can sell better weapon, generals can guard trading posts and caravans).

      But that mean... there must be not only goodie-goodie scenarios. But also ways for a foreign force to meddle into such domestic affairs -- send spyes, sabotage things.

      And. Inevitable part of it are well-being and social harmony in towns. Can you not agree... that that would be dull and stupid if there'd be ONLY interactions in between players. While on the background of it, some stupid "yes,sir" marionettes. Peasants easily levied. City artisans ready to fulfill any desire. People of other states/towns that would be equally happy -- no matter who'd come to conquer and enslave em.

      That would be... unrealistic?

      But I found no suitable way to add such things into General-Merchant-Builder schema.

      And adding it to role of King. As ultimate mediator and goal-setter -- also looks not good.

      So... "religious leaders"... come in naturally?

      As someone who'd keep track of such social things...

      Delete
    5. But you are right -- that is really too big idea, too big of a projects to start from scratch. :-(

      But, huh... it just came to me.(have you such experience -- how ideas do come, in time of discussion? :-))

      I recall one project. Even pre-project. I once discussed. Practically unrelated. But now, after discussing with you -- I see it as perfectly fitting -- to test that King-Generals model... possibly with adding other stuff.

      It was about game in setting of American Indians. You know. People living in vigvams, roaming across Great Planes...

      Important part -- that they represented as individuals (small tribe, everybody knows everyone). And all things like social, economy and cultural stuff... is pretty much primordial and schematic.

      So. Quick sketch of it.

      There is tribe. And it represented with its leader Chief(King) as player. AND... other players can "attach" to it as leaders of groups/teams assigned by that leader from members of that tribe. But ones that can work independently. Under simplified AI, if there is no players ready to engage. To perform some simplified tasks (like, go catch some fish/game). Or more and more developed and difficult (go snatch some wifes from other tribe, start a war with em).

      Delete
  8. https://www.britannica.com/place/Japan/Political-reform-in-the-bakufu-and-the-han

    Interesting because it shows "clear case" -- of a social structure in peaceful times. Unlike European history where it hard because of cross-polination and fusions. And much prolonged wars.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is off-topic but I can't change the way my mind works. I got to thinking about how surprising (and lucky) it is that we can represent reality in onion layers of detail, meaning that abstractification (the outer layers) is possible. An example would be Newtonian mechanics, which works OK for modelling a solar system (other than some fiddly details about the precession of Mercury). You can steer a spacecraft around just fine using Newton, even though Newton's equations are just an approximation of Einstein's at low velocities and weak gravitational fields.

    Or consider whole subjects like biology and chemistry. Ultimately they are special-case abstractifications built on the underlying physics. But it would be computationally impossible to model hydrocarbons working all the way up from the physics of subatomic particles.

    If we did model all of reality from the ground up (well, from the quarks up) we'd have to be very patient and/or be able to observe a very large number of cases. We could wait billions of years for solar systems to form, and maybe another few billion for complex life. So it's lucky that we can put all that stuff into a black box and "just" model sociology, economics, geography, epidemiology, warfare and a few other subjects which together create emergent civilizations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. I know that thing. Under name of "inexplicable proves of mathematics to explain things".

      The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in ...
      Wikipedia
      https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › The_Unreasonable_Ef...
      "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is a 1960 article written by the physicist Eugene Wigner, published in Communication ...

      But for me... that is not a question anymore. As I found an answer (for myself, as that is deeply philosophical and as such -- personal, thing).

      The reason is -- math is just congruent to it. To things it depicts.

      Like numbers, from the times of abacus.

      One stone -- means one. Two stones -- means two.

      That simple.

      Delete
    2. \\But it would be computationally impossible to model hydrocarbons working all the way up from the physics of subatomic particles.

      Who knows... we may just not know correct formula...

      Delete
    3. That's the thing, we do have the required formulae. That's what organic chemistry is. And what's useful is that once you're zoomed out from the nucleus and looking at electron bonds, you don't need to bother with the weak and strong forces (short range) or with gravity either (long range but very weak). Of course, if we lived in a universe where the four forces worked on similar scales with similar strengths, we probably wouldn't exist because there would be no emergent complex & stable structures.

      Delete
    4. The usefulness of maths is, as you say, unsurprising. We see the same maths describing different different situations (eg weights on a spring or alternating electric currents) but what is interesting is that we can for most problems disregard a whole bunch of things and just focus on the thing we're interested in. So you don't need to bother with the nuclear forces or electromagnetism when modelling solar systems or galaxy formation.

      (Admittedly in the latter case there's something still missing in our current modelling, either the nature of dark matter or modified gravity, but that's a detail.)

      Delete
    5. Because... if that'd be the case, we'd be living(well, somebody else -- sapience, if possible) in very different world...

      There's another word -- anthropocentric view.

      We exist here and today -- because of all previous history and whole Universe -- is that background... of our existence.

      Delete
    6. Err...

      What is the anthropic principle?
      HowStuffWorks
      https://science.howstuffworks.com › everyday-myths
      Apr 16, 2024 — The anthropic principle suggests that the universe is finely tuned for human existence. It posits that the fundamental constants and conditions ...

      Delete
    7. "The anthropic principle, also known as the observation selection effect, is the hypothesis that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations are only possible in the type of universe that is capable of developing intelligent life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate intelligent life. If either had been significantly different, no one would have been around to make observations. "

      It's still lucky that we can use maths & relativity to deduce (as Dirac did) that electrons have spin and that the positron exists. Or indeed that quantum electrodynamics is such a successful model of reality. It would be easy to conceive of a universe organized enough for intelligent life but where macroscopic physics & maths were not capable of modelling subatomic conditions. Or would it..? Maybe everything has to fit consistently in each layer of reality up otherwise there would be crash bugs.

      Delete
    8. \\It's still lucky that we can use maths & relativity to deduce (as Dirac did) that electrons have spin and that the positron exists.

      Well... that exactly, about positrons. Is no-brainer at all.

      Direct consequence of that circumstances -- that Dirak was doing matrix-math version of QM. And in matrix-math every matrix have its antipode. ;-)

      So... it exactly as I stated above there... about abacus.

      Well... it is not simple -- to deduce how it connects -- having matter and anti-matter... that then manifest itself into having matrix math with matrices and and anti-matrices... but.


      \\Or indeed that quantum electrodynamics is such a successful model of reality.

      Is it?

      Well... they say:
      "
      In summary, the standard model of particle physics, specifically quantum electrodynamics (QED), has numerous real-world applications. These include atomic spectroscopy, laser-based chemistry, and the properties of substances such as gold and mercury.Dec 12, 2011

      Does QED have any real-world applications? - Physics Forums
      Physics Forums
      https://www.physicsforums.com › threads › does-qed-h...
      "
      But that is neither you nor I do or can see in our everyday life.

      And on the contrary, from same search page:
      "
      Is QED flawed?

      Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia
      Because the theory is "sick" for any negative value of the coupling constant, the series does not converge but is at best an asymptotic series. From a modern perspective, we say that QED is not well defined as a quantum field theory to arbitrarily high energy.
      "

      \\It would be easy to conceive of a universe organized enough for intelligent life but where macroscopic physics & maths were not capable of modelling subatomic conditions. Or would it..?

      Well... "macroscopic physics" exist exactly because that fundamental forces is so neatly separated in their scope (gravity works best on a scope of light years... electromagnetic force -- around all what we know sizes... and nuclear forces, they are pretty much only there -- at nuclear level).

      And that is hard to imagine a Universe... where whole planets could do such salto mortale as Quantum Leaps or Double Slits.

      Delete
    9. \\Maybe everything has to fit consistently in each layer of reality up otherwise there would be crash bugs.

      Problem is -- we dunno.

      Solution is -- we can... for at least there is such optimism... that we could be knowing more... if we'd learn to make bigger and more complex models and build bigger and more complex computers to calculate it all... ;-)

      Delete
  10. DrTardigrade progress log -- https://drtardigrade.itch.io/worldhistorysim/devlog ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. ""
    At the center of complexity thus rests an underlying simplicity: the great heterogeneous mass of culture in which we live becomes reconfigured as an emergent effect of the smaller, describable choices individuals tend to make. The intellectual pay-off of social simulation comes when scholars identify and replicate this surprising disjunction. As Joshua Epstein and Robert Axtell argue, “it is not the emergent macroscopic object per se that is surprising, but the generative sufficiency of the simple local rules” [Epstein 1996, 52]. In this formulation, to study complex systems is to wield the procedural operation of computers like Occam’s Razor — by showing that simple procedures are sufficient to cause complex phenomena within artificial societies, one raises at least the possibility that such procedures are “all that is really happening” in actual systems [Epstein 1996, 52].
    ""
    https://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/8/4/000195/000195.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. Technically... that could be like RPG. Really -- pseudo-infinite map where in the each point you can have some encounter and some special places to have named quests -- it's practically standard de-facto of RPG games (MMO too) for more then 20 years.

    Only... unlike with RPG -- it need not to be tied to some Role-Playing. To some definite personage.

    More like "tree" of achievments -- from lower officer and up, and up.

    Or... like in that indian tribe scenario -- up and up, up to becoming the chief of a tribe...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a small way that's what I was aiming for with my open-world gamebook series Fabled Lands from 30 years ago or the more recent Vulcanverse series. And perhaps the best example is Expeditionary Company, which the designers originally intended to release as a PC game but that they converted to book form when funding fell through.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts