Designing Choices in Games

Most recently released role-playing games have added moral choices or dilemmas as a core part of game-play. Unfortunately, few of these games succeed in making them interesting. They only offer "good" or "evil" options, which limit the player to being an angelic fairy of holiness or a complete jerk.


Choices need more depth than this

In order to make these choices actually elicit thought on the part of the player there are some basic requirements.

1. Make every choice viable to complete the game.
In some games you can make choices that make it almost impossible to finish the game. In Baldur's Gate, for example, the game has a reputation system which goes from 1 (extremely evil) to 20 (Heroic and noble). Unfortunately, only the heroic and noble option is viable to complete the game. If you are good, merchants will give you a steep discount on items and most people will react favorably to you. If you choose to make an evil party and your reputation drops below a certain point your game becomes a living hell. You will be attacked by the guards in every town, merchants will refuse to sell you items, and as you travel you will be ambushed by large war parties from the major cities.


The game is rather difficult to beat when a giant army of mercenaries attacks everywhere you go

It may be realistic that the major towns have a bounty on your head when you're evil, but from a game play context it's a nightmare. If you give the option to play as an evil character it needs to be a viable choice.

As an additional problem, every other character in the game who joins your adventuring party has their own alignment of good, neutral, or evil. Good and neutral characters will leave your party if you become too evil, evil characters will leave your party if you become too good. This means that if you use these characters in your group you have limitations to the choices you can make-otherwise you'll lose half of your strength and be unable to finish the game without a tedious trek around the world to find some more people of like-minded beliefs to join you.

2. Don't make one path grant benefits that are much better than the rest.
The worst route you can take for making a moral choice system is to offer unequal rewards. Players will almost always seek to take whatever route offers the best items, the most money, and the most experience. If you have a quest with one choice that gives the player a couple healing potions and one that gives the player a tremendously powerful weapon, why on earth would anyone pick the one that offers healing potions?


No offense meant healing potions, but you're just not as fun as a new sword

In the Baldur's Gate games, persuading an enemy not to fight or letting them go is almost always the worst possible choice. You don't usually get any experience points for releasing them and you also miss out on all the items and gold they might be carrying.

This isn't to say that you can't offer different rewards for different options, but they need to be properly balanced. Otherwise players aren't going to think about what choice is the best morally or pragmatically, they will think about what choice gives them the best loot.


Hmm I don't know if I want to kill hi-wait I get a TANK if I kill him? When and where do you want him dead?

3. Don't make good and evil moral compasses for players.
This is more of a personal preference of mine than anything else, but I despise games that choose to give you a good/evil compass. Many recent games use this device, such as Infamous and Prototype.


At least the cover of the game makes being evil look viable

The problem I have with these moral compasses is that they are again placing an artificial device in the way that will take precedence over your actual beliefs when it comes to making choices. To get the best armor/weapons/ending to the game you are required to play as a complete evil bastard or complete good hearted soul. If you pick a choice in between the two, a pragmatic option, you don't get the best toys to play with.

On the other hand, I can also see why a lot games choose this type of system. It makes it easy to design all of the choices-you just make an evil and a good option. If you add additional options, it adds a great deal of development time and expense to the game. If you have different endings to the game based off your choices throughout, it's also a lot easier to just have two or three to worry about as opposed to a dozen or more.

However, if you must use some sort of numeric value to rate the player's choices throughout the game, it is better to make it based off something other than good and evil. Two games I can think of that do this well are Mass Effect and Arcanum.

In Mass Effect you can make Paragon actions, which tend to be forgiving and generous to others, and Renegade actions, which tend to be pragmatic. You are allowed to make either paragon or renegade choices in some situations based off your level in that side. For instance, a paragon choice might be to let someone who tried to rob you go after you beat him up with a stern warning to turn his life around. A renegade option might be to throw him out of the window of a skyscraper.


The renegade/paragon scale of Mass Effect

The best part of this system is that you aren't limited to only one side or the other, you can choose to make paragon or renegade decisions whenever you like. The only disadvantage to not going fully down one track is that there are a few persuasive choices that you need extremely high renegade or paragon scores in order to accomplish. However, if your score isn't high enough to make them it doesn't ruin your game. Thus, you feel free to pick whatever option seems best to you.

Arcanum is a steampunk RPG where magic and technology exist in the same world. You can choose to have a character who uses swords, armor, and magic or a character who uses molotov cocktails, grenades, pistols, and shotguns. Or you can pick a character in the middle who uses elements of both.


Unfortunately the game is also so old that including any screenshots would be a bad idea

However, the game features a compass between magic and technology-as you choose abilities that let you use magic the compass tilts toward magic, as you choose technological abilities it tilts toward technology. Highly technological characters cannot use or be affected by magic as well, so if you try and use a healing spell on your character it will not be as effective. A highly magical character cannot use firearms or explosives effectively. If you pick a character in the middle, they can use items from both sides, but not to their maximum effect. This makes choosing abilities when you gain levels extremely interesting-there are many variables to consider, making it take a great deal of thought.

4. Make major choices have effects later in the game.
If you want players to care about each decision, it's good to make big decisions have a lasting effect on the game. That doesn't mean that picking between some money and a healing potion needs to change the ending of the game, but some certainly should have significance.


I told you we should have taken the healing potion!

Let me conclude with a few examples of well designed choices. In one of the downloadable modules for the first Mass Effect, a group of terrorists has taken over a mining facility on a large asteroid and have aimed it at the planet below where millions of people live. The terrorist's leader has locked up a group of the miners and scientists in a room with a bomb rigged to go off. He makes an ultimatum-let him go or he will detonate the bomb and kill all of the hostages. You can choose to release him and potentially allow him to make a similar attack again or you can go after him and all the hostages will die. You suffer no changes in loot or experience for picking either route-it's all up to you.


Although the hideous nature of Batarians does tend to bias me toward killing him

Another example-you are sent to kill the leader of a nation or city because he has been imprisoning a specific group of the population. However, when you go after him he explains the reasons behind his actions. Perhaps that group was responsible for terrorist attacks against the population and he's trying the best he can to protect his people. The leader isn't a caricature of evil, as most games make the bad guy, he's a realistic, human figure. What choice do you make now? Should you kill him? Let him stay in power? Take him prisoner?


A decision becomes much more challenging to make when it's about someone whose awkward situation you can understand

Even better, make the choice be about a character you've known throughout the whole game and grown to like. One of the members of your party was hit by a corrupting spell by an enemy sorcerer that causes him to go into a berserk rage every few days. The first time this happens he kills a few innocent civilians before you can restrain him and it wears off. Do put him in restrains and try and find someone to dispel the curse? Do you kill him outright for killing civilians? Do you keep him with you but restrain him before he's going to go berserk because you like the guy and couldn't bear losing him?

I want to see more games that offer complex choices like this, not simple ones that are biased by rewards or other ancillary factors of the game. Difficult options force me to think and care about the world that was created and will keep me coming back for the next expansion or sequel in the series.

Dissent is Good-Why Moderates are Important in Politics

One of the growing trends in American politics for the last decade is for inter-party dissent to be smothered. Throughout the last two years, most votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate have been split between Democrats and Republicans, with maybe one or two members of each party voting against their party's view every now and then. Publicly disagreeing with the party line is not acceptable. I find this extremely worrying because if no one is allowed to disagree then many major problems are ignored because no one is voicing them!

This is particularly true in the Republican party, where the moderate Republican is rapidly becoming extinct. In 2004 Pat Toomey ran a very successful primary campaign against Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania by accusing Specter of being a RINO-Republican in name only. Although Specter narrowly won, the race showed that having a moderate political philosophy is a huge liability in the mindset of most voters in primary elections.

After Specter voted for President Obama's economic stimulus plan he felt forced to change parties if he wanted to have a chance of keeping his senate seat. The Republican leadership was outraged with him for voting against the party line. As Specter said afterward:
"A senator is supposed to be able to exercise his judgment without being excommunicated, and when I voted for the stimulus that was the end of my relationship with the Republican Party."


Specter's love of bears was also an issue with voters

The rise of the Tea Party in this election cycle shows this phenomenon worsening. Representative Mike Castle of Delaware lost his primary bid against Tea Party supported Christine O'Donnel because of the perception that he was too liberal. Polls taken prior to the election showed "a growing feeling among Republicans – 55 percent, according to the poll – that Castle is too liberal." After his loss, Castle commented that voters "were very energetic, they were very committed, and they didn't want to hear any other point of view."


The mandatory election loss pout

This is almost nonsensical because Mike Castle is not even much of a moderate republican. He voted against almost all of President Obama's proposals. The only moderate view Castle has expressed is that he believes trying to repeal healthcare reform is a waste of time because of Obama's veto. He was still open to it if Republicans won enough of a majority in the election or if they won the 2012 presidential election.

There are certainly other issues affecting this election cycle than simply a desire among voters for politicians to cater strongly to the party platform. Many voters are upset with incumbents and want new people in office. Senator Specter also had the additional problem of having to woo a new group of voters after he changed from Republican to Democrat. But I think the growing dissatisfaction among members of each party's base with moderate candidates is a large part of the problem.

But why do I care? If voters want politicians who are more conservative or liberal in their view isn't that fine?

Allowing the expression of dissenting opinions, which in politics tends to come from more moderate members of the party, is incredibly important because of two psychological phenomenon that all people are subject to.

One is groupthink. Essentially, in the desire for harmony, groups tend to want one unanimous decision expressed. This causes dissenting views to be suppressed and has led to many poorly thought out decisions throughout history. The problem worsens when the members of a group have similar opinions to begin with. The perception is that a group must present a united front to the outside world in order to prevent opponents from being emboldened and taking advantage of any divisions noted within the group.


"Your arm must be in the air at all meetings!"

To some extent, I see why this is important. If one member of your organization goes out in public and speaks against the group's view at every turn, that makes it appear as if your group cannot control its members and shouldn't be taken seriously. But very few of the people who have been criticized or even ejected by their party or organization have been guilty of this. They have simply written an article or spoken to a reporter while making it very clear that they are voicing their own personal views. When people are evicted for that, it goes beyond trying to look like an effective organization to forming a group of yes-men.

The other is confirmation bias-our tendency to immediately accept information that agrees with our views while ignoring information that conflicts with them. I have certainly noticed this while writing papers. It's very tempting to completely ignore a conflicting paper so that it looks as if all the evidence supports your idea. However, it's frequently not even a conscious bias, you just tend to notice information that matches what you think.

If dissenters aren't allowed to voice their view, you will find that horrible choices are made because the evidence wasn't thoroughly considered. A good example is the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, where the CIA aided a group of Cuban exiles in an attempt to take over Cuba. It was thought that the population would aid the group and that an easy victory would occur. However, British intelligence had already shared with the CIA the information that the vast majority of the Cuban population supported Castro. This, along with other problems, was ignored and the invasion went on to a spectacular failure.

In order to avoid these two biases, you need strong dissenting voices to break the group out of its malaise. Otherwise you end up with choices that are extremely easy to make and also sometimes extremely wrong. That is why I am worried about the demise of moderates in US politics. They are the force in the party that will agree when the other side has a good idea.

These problems aren't by any means limited to politics. Hugh Montefiore, a trustee of the environmentalist group Friends of the Earth resigned in 2004. The reason: "I have been a trustee of Friends of the Earth for 20 years and when I told my fellow trustees that I wished to write on nuclear energy, I was told that this is not compatible with being a trustee."


Designing this button was the last straw for Montefiore

Rather than considering whether there was room for different views on ways to halt the progress of global warming, the organization simply said he was wrong and wanted him out. That is not a functional group relationship.

One of the ways that I determine if a group works well together is how it handles a dissenting opinion. A non-functioning group will ignore the dissenting view completely. This may be done by saying that the group has already agreed, so there is no need for further discussion. It may be done by pointing to the group's own carefully selected evidence and saying that there is no need for more research. It may be done by kicking the dissenting member out of the group entirely. In some cases in the past, it has been done by ordering the dissenter hung or decapitated for daring to disagree with the King.

If the group is functional, it will at least consider the opinion and any evidence behind it. In many cases, a dissenting view is the only way that a major problem with an idea can be found. For example, if you're planning to build a dam in a river, one member of your planning team might point out that the location of the dam will restrict the seasonal flooding that farmers downstream have been relying on for centuries to fertilize the soil through spreading silt. This may be ignored if the economic benefits of the dam are considered to outweigh the farmer's needs, but it is important for that fact to be at least noticed in the planning process.


However, there is a point when dissent shouldn't be tolerated

Zero Tolerance Policies Make Zero Sense

Schools are responsible for educating millions of children across the United States. One element of that responsibility is to maintain the safety of children while they are at school. Restricting the presence of weapons at schools is a good policy, it's hard to learn when you know that several of your classmates have knives, guns, or other lethal weapons in their backpacks. Unfortunately, some school districts and administrators have gone overboard in the application of laws designed to restrict the presence of weapons in schools and have involved the criminal justice system inappropriately in the punishment of these children. This is usually accomplished through the creation of a "zero tolerance" policy for the district.

A zero tolerance policy provides a mandated minimum penalty to ANY student who brings anything that can be construed as a weapon into a school. This may be suspension, expulsion, or referral to the police depending on the district.

For one incident last year, a 6 year old boy was suspended for bringing a camping utensil to school to use for lunch. The school district claimed that it had no discretion in the matter because the code of conduct of their district mandated a suspension for any type of knife regardless of possessor's intent. No flexibility allowed.


Apparently the face of a potential murderer

For another example,

In Denton County, Texas, a 13-year-old was asked to write a "scary" Halloween story for a class assignment. When the child wrote a story that talked about shooting up a school, he both received a passing grade by his teacher and was referred to the school principal's office. The school officials called the police, and the child spent six days in jail before the courts confirmed that no crime had been committed.

Spending time in jail for writing a fictional story is certainly an example of appropriate punishment for a thirteen year old!

There are at least a few dozen of these types of stories that draw media attention every year, as students are suspended, expelled, or even jailed because school administrators don't apply common sense to these cases. There are certainly many more that go unrecognized.

A bit of background on the origin of many of these district policies:

In reaction to a series of school shootings, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Byron Dorgan introduced the Gun Free Schools Act. The law's actual wording:

(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), each State receiving Federal funds under this Act shall have in effect a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not less than one year a student who is determined to have brought a weapon to a school under the jurisdiction of local educational agencies in that State, except that such State law shall allow the chief administering officer of such local educational agency to modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis.

Feinstein after the bill passed

The federal law itself stipulates that local educators are supposed to regulate penalties for students on a case by case basis. Thus, common sense is written into the law. I don't think it was the intent for students to be expelled for bringing butter knives or plastic knives into school for the purposes of cutting food.

However, the event that greatly accelerated the spread of zero tolerance policies was the shooting at Columbine High School. Parents demanded that their school districts keep their children safe. Unfortunately, the route that many schools took to do this was to adopt these policies, thinking that a harsh penalty would deter violence.

This goes against recommendations made by the secret service based on an investigation of 37 school shootings. The investigation showed that kids do not go on a killing rampage on a whim, there is a pattern of behavior beforehand. In most cases, they had told multiple people and made plans before the incident. Instead of banning anyone who brings weapons to school, it is better to focus on educating students to tell teachers or administrators when someone has made plans to attack. Additionally, these reports must be taken seriously and investigated appropriately.

The real effect of zero tolerance policies is shown in increasing rates of suspensions and also expulsions:

While students are reporting school crime at the same level as in the 1970s, the number of youth suspensions has nearly doubled from 3.7% of students in 1974 (1.7 million students suspended) to 6.8% of students in 1998 (3.2 million students suspended). In Michigan schools, 3,500 students were expelled during academic year 1999-2000.

All of those suspensions and expulsions are not related to zero tolerance policies, but they are certainly part of the reason behind the dramatic increase in a few decades.

The goal of school is to provide an education for our youth. Numerous studies have shown that suspensions lead to increased dropout rates.


As suspensions increase, so do dropout rates

Children who leave school early do not get an effective education and are more likely to be involved in crime. It is in the best interests of our children and the country to provide children with every opportunity to get the best education possible. The decision to suspend or expel a child from school needs to be made very carefully and ideally provide the child with a chance to correct their behavior.

It makes no sense to remove a child from school entirely simply because they made the error in judgment of bringing a butter knife, aspirin, ibuprofen, or other innocuous object to school only to discover that it is considered a "weapon." This is especially true when the federal law itself indicates that these policies should be considered on a case by case basis-indicating that common sense needs to be applied to punishing children for violations.

As the American Bar Association puts it:

Zero tolerance policies for students adopt a theory of mandatory punishment that has been rejected by the adult criminal justice system because it is too harsh! Rather than having a variety of sanctions available for a range of school-based offenses, state laws and school district policies apply the same expulsion rules to the six-year-old as to the 17-year-old; to the first time offender as to the chronic troublemaker; to the child with a gun as to the child with a Swiss Army knife.

Adults - especially those who teach children - are expected to have the skills and knowledge to teach behavior in age-appropriate ways. Unfortunately, zero tolerance as practiced today is not rooted in theories of pedagogy or child or adolescent development. It teaches children nothing about fairness, and often creates injustice.

Brief History of Artillery Development

Artillery has progressed from serving an ancillary role in siege warfare to being a major branch of every military in the world. When determining the scale of victories or defeats, the number of guns captured was factored in alongside casualty listings. But how did artillery evolve to play such a major role in the victories or defeats of nations? This article covers the early development of artillery to its use by Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus, whose changes in tactics and strategy showed the true potential of artillery to every nation in the world.

Introduction

Francis Bacon, a significant English philosopher, statesmen, and author, credited the three greatest inventions of his time in his work Novum Organum in 1620. He chose the printing press, the compass, and gunpowder. Gunpowder had changed the face of modern warfare by Bacon’s time, forcing new tactics and strategies to develop on the battlefield. Additionally, industries devoted to the manufacture of firearms, artillery, and gunpowder emerged in every European country.


Austrian field piece

Route to Europe

Gunpowder, and its first military uses in rockets, cannons, and other weapons, originated in China. Through trade, firearms technology slowly diffused across Asia to Europe, disseminating to most countries by the fourteenth century. Initially, cannon were not powerful enough to knock down castle walls, but most armies saw great potential in the technology. Many nations invested in small artillery pieces, and the formula for gunpowder was experimented with to improve destructive potential.

Improvement of Gunpowder

A great advance was made when European powder-makers added liquid to gunpowder in an effort to reduce both the dust produced in manufacture and the hazard of accidental explosions. The paste produced was allowed to dry in granules, leading to the term “corned” powder. This powder turned out to be both more powerful and easier to load into cannon. The power was increased because the powder ignited simultaneously, producing a coordinated explosion. Previously, the gunpowder first ignited by the application of flame would explode independently, ejecting a good portion of unlit powder, thereby reducing overall explosive yield.


Example of Black Powder

The Hundred Years War

The Hundred Years War featured the first large scale European employment of cannon in warfare. For the most part, the cannon employed were fairly small pieces, such as the bombard cannon pictured below. Despite their small size, the improvements in gunpowder composition increased their performance tremendously, enabling them to take down castle walls. The traditional advantage that walls gave defenders was reduced greatly. A fortress considered unassailable a century before could now be seized.



A typical smaller bombard.

Cannon also proved their worth in defense on the field. In 1453 at the Battle of Castillon toward the end of the conflict, six thousand troops under Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury marched against a defending French force. The French were set up in a defensive position with over three hundred cannon arrayed against the English. As English forces charged forward, French bows, firearms, and cannon inflicted horrendous casualties. This battle foreshadowed the critical role artillery would begin to play in field combat, inflicting mass casualties to advancing troops at great distance.

The Fall of Constantinople

Also in 1453, the changes artillery would cause to the nature of fortifications were revealed through the final advance of the Ottoman Empire against the venerable Byzantine Empire’s capital of Constantinople. Constantinople was defended by tall, thick walls which had kept it safe from attack for centuries, even as the rest of Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Empire. The Turks deployed a gigantic great bombard artillery piece to fell the walls along with other smaller bombards. Their great cannon took 200 men and sixty oxen to emplace and could fire only seven times a day.


The Great Bombard used by the Ottomans

Some of the weaknesses of artillery of the period were revealed in this siege, as well as their strengths. The great bombard itself was rather ineffective. The cannon was inaccurate and took an extremely long time to reload. The Byzantines were actually able to repair most of the damage inflicted by the great cannon before it was readied to fire again.

However, over a period of weeks, the Ottoman’s artillery began to inflict heavy damage to the walls, aiding the final assaults that took the city. The siege showed that cannon, given enough time, could eventually bring down defenses impervious to all previous siege weapons. This would lead to a revolutionary change in fortifications as the old defensive models used throughout Europe based on Roman or Medieval styles were no longer effective.


Mehmed II advancing alongside his great bombard.

Weaknesses of Early Cannon

Early artillery was hindered by several factors. Many cannon weighed a tremendous amount, causing them to become effectively immobile once they were deployed. Precision targeting was impossible. At best, gunners could aim for a general area on the field. They were also were rather unreliable and dangerous. James II, a Scottish king, was killed in 1460 when one of his artillery pieces exploded near him. Artillery had a slow rate of fire as well, due to the nature of their construction. Breech-loading artillery was difficult to implement due to engineering limitations of the time, so most pieces were front loaded, a much lengthier process.

An additional problem that early cannon faced was caused by manufacturing limitations. Each piece was crafted and cast individually. This made it difficult to keep artillery in working order, as each piece was effectively a unique model of gun. Muskets shared a similar weakness when any of their components became damaged. A gunsmith would have to craft a new piece that fit into the body of the weapon, as standardized, replaceable parts had not been invented yet.

Improvements to Cannon

The mobility and strength of Cannon were improved throughout the 15th century. Field carriages that allowed them to be pulled into place by horses or oxen were created, allowing them to be moved intact to the field rather than in pieces. Advances in iron casting technology allowed the gun barrel’s size to be reduced. Engineers developed trunnion, which were cylindrical projections from the gun barrel into the carriage that allowed the piece to be depressed or elevated far more easily than before. This allowed gunners to change their targets on the field more rapidly.


A field piece with trunnion visible on the sides of the barrel.

In the early 17th century, several more improvements were made. The shot and powder of cannon were combined into a single cartridge in the 1620s, which made cannons far easier and safer to load. They were placed into a small fabric bag that was destroyed when the gun fired. Unfortunately, residual fragments of the bag tended to foul up the gun barrel. A new tool, called a worm, was created to clear out any remaining bag fragments to keep the gun ready to fire.


A worm used to clean out gun barrels.

Grapeshot and canister shot were also developed to enhance the effectiveness of artillery at close range. Both of these types of shot consisted of numerous small metal balls inside a metal case or fabric bag. When fired, the casing was destroyed and dozens to hundreds of lethal objects were shot forward in a wide angle, similar to a shotgun. This was absolutely devastating to infantry and cavalry at close range, and added a significant amount of versatility and power to artillery-they were able to employ solid shot for longer ranged combat and switch to canister or grapeshot as the enemy approached to inflict horrendous casualties



Diagram of a Grapeshot Canister

Advances in artillery tactics-Gustavus Adolphus

The visionary Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus brought artillery into the forefront of field combat in the early 17th century. Whereas many nations were focused on creating fielding larger cannon, Adolphus believed that mobility and training were more important for creating a potent artillery force. In that vein, he chose to employ dozens of smaller cannon that could be rapidly shifted to fire into critical areas of battle. They were deployed in flexible batteries that fired into the gaps between his musketeer and pike formations, devastating any enemy troops attempting to penetrate these seemingly open areas.

Adolphus revolutionized the training of artillerymen. His cavalry, foot, and artillery all drilled on the field together in combined arms exercises. His artillerymen were far better prepared for combat than the artillery of other nations due to this vigorous training that more accurately simulated battlefield conditions. At the Battle of Breitenfeld between Protestant and Catholic forces, the Swedish artillery fired three to five volleys for every returning volley of the Catholic artillery. When Catholic cavalry attempted to charge the Swedish positions multiple times, they were driven back by intense artillery bombardment, at a rate of fire unmatched by any other army at the time. Adolphus’s flexible formations also showed their worth when Catholic infantry moved in a flanking attack on Swedish lines. Swiftly shifting his troops, Adolphus brought his artillery and troops to bear on the flanking attack, devastating it with barrages of artillery and musket fire.


Gustavus Adolphus at the Battle of Breitenfeld

Adolphus’s employment of highly mobile, highly trained artillery was a groundbreaking shift in battlefield tactics. It changed the face of warfare entirely, influencing Napolean and many later generals in their own battle formations. Artillery advances focused on creating lighter, more mobile guns that were capable of shifting to new threats on the battlefield. Better training and equipment allowed the rate of fire to increase dramatically, allowing artillery crews to make major differences on the battlefield.

Cannon had evolved from serving as a limited support weapon used to level fortifications to a core component of every general’s army. No one could afford to neglect their artillery services, and the mobility and power of guns continued to increase throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, serving critical roles in all major conflicts of the time. In future articles I will show the continued progression of artillery through the major conflicts of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

Company of Heroes-Force Multipliers

This is an article I wrote a couple years ago about the RTS game Company of Heroes. One of the most interesting game concepts found in Company of Heroes is the presence of units that can turn the tide of battle against a much larger army. In most other RTS games, this sort of mechanism is accomplished through a rigid counter system, such as a spearman unit that can kill two light cavalry units, or an archer that can kill two spearman units. Company of Heroes has a much more interesting take on this, where support units like HMGs, buildings, and the map’s terrain itself serve to let a skilled player take advantage of this force multiplication concept. However, you can use the strategies in this article and apply them to almost any game, you just have to look at what methods you can use to defeat a numerically superior force.

HMGs: Heavy machine guns, such as the Wehrmacht MG42 and American .30 cal, are one of the most obvious tools that enable a smaller army to beat a larger one. They get accuracy bonuses against larger groups of troops and can suppress the enemy. This causes troops to crawl around on the ground, lowering their movement speed and making them more susceptible to the firepower of your main infantry, such as Grenadiers. Soon after becoming suppressed, those troops then become pinned, completely unable to fire or move. A well placed MG can stop a large infantry-based attack in its tracks.


MG-42 forcing British infantry to retreat


A 260 manpower brings 2000 manpower in British troops to a halt

Though MGs lose some effectiveness as the game progresses due to the increased availability of indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, howitzers, and doctrine based artillery call-ins, their suppression effect can still be very effective throughout an entire match. A well supported MG can be one of the best tools for stopping the current mainstream tactic of ‘blobbing.’

Tanks: With complete invulnerability to small arms fire and a powerful main gun (and potentially even an upgradeable turret-mounted HMG,) tanks serve as an extremely potent force multiplier for your army. Tanks that have heavier frontal armor, such as Tigers, StuGs, StuHs, and Hetzers, can laugh as weaker projectiles, like bazookas, bounce right off their hood.


A Hetzer watches as a bazooka round bounces off its hull, no penetration achieved


Riflemen and Rangers are forced to retreat with heavy casualties, Hetzer suffered no damage

A tank with infantry support can dish out a lot of damage, while any damage it suffers (short of death) does not cost any resources to repair - it only requires some of your repair crew’s time. In comparison, every soldier your tank kills will cost your opponent Manpower to replace. It’s important to keep in mind that you need to have infantry support with your tank for it to be truly effective and game changing. If you send in a tank solo, it will tend to die unless it is facing inferior forces.

Cover: This is easily the most available and widely used method of force multiplication. Yellow cover is frequently present all over a map in the form of small trees and brush dotted along the ground. Yellow cover gives your forces a moderate amount of protection from gunfire, allowing your squad to take fewer casualties as it faces off against a squad not in cover. Green cover, usually seen in the form of stone fences or hay piles, offers considerably greater benefits. If you have two Grenadier squads in green cover behind a stone wall, they can defeat three charging Riflemen squads. Obviously, the more cover you utilize, the better.


These grenadiers would be in trouble in the open


But behind their heavy cover they defeat these riflemen with ease

However, there are also ways to use the negative cover on the map (which causes soldiers to take additional damage) to your benefit as well. On maps like Semois and Angoville, the roads are common retreat routes. If you position some troops or a MG along these routes, you can easily get a squad kill as your opponent is attempting to flee.

Buildable defenses: Unless you’re playing as British, these tend to be forgotten in terms of improving your position on the map. A well thought out system of fortifications can make your opponent hemmed into a tiny area of the map, losing precious Manpower every time he attempts to leave that area. Each type of defense has advantages that merit individual discussion:

Barbed Wire: Currently, this isn’t used anymore due to the crappy wiring AI of the game, but I hear that this is fixed in the beta so it merits a mention. The point of barbed wire is to deny your opponent easy access to an area, because only weaker units, like Engineers and Pioneers, are able to cut it in the early game, and they suffer increased vulnerability to enemy fire as they do so. It can be built for free and VERY quickly by a variety of units from each side.

If you have secured an important area of the map, you can use these idle troops to sculpt the terrain to your advantage for when your opponent inevitably returns to contest your holdings. You can wire off some of the entrance routes to the area, button-holing him into only one access point, which leaves him as easy prey to a HMG team. You can also take advantage of negative cover on the maps and wire off access to heavy or yellow cover, forcing his infantry to walk down the main road and take additional damage from any troops you have in the area. The infamous ‘Semois Pin’ involved significant use of barbed wire to leave an opponent stuck in his base, unable to do anything of value.

Sandbags: These provide the bonuses of green cover to wherever you choose to build them. They allow for you to fortify open areas of the map, such as the left side of Angoville or many areas of Langres, giving your troops a great deal of protection from enemy fire. Another creative use that players have come up with is to build sandbags at small entrance paths to key areas, such as the high fuel on Sturzdorf. This allows it to function like barbed wire, except that it cannot be cut. In either case, they can allow your army to win against technically superior forces by providing a powerful cover bonus.


Sandbags buy time for this grenadier squad to upgrade a panzerschrek, so they can damage the armored car

Tank Traps: Basically the same as barbed wire, except it is used against vehicles. They are difficult to destroy and allow you to hem your opponent’s vehicles into your anti-tank weapons' kill zones.

Land Mines: These are the buildable defense that I see most often in 1v1 play. They only cost 25 Munitions and have a lot of power for their price - it’s highly recommended to use extra munitions you have on these! Many players do not choose to buy minesweepers, so they continually step on these. There are several varieties in the game - Panzer Elite Tellermines that only trigger on vehicles; regular land mines that trigger on anything and can be built by Sappers, Engineers, and Pioneers; and the more powerful M8 land mines that also trigger on anything.


This sniper took one step too far


Hetzer receives a damaged engine from rolling over a mine. It would now be easy prey for any enemy tanks or anti-tank infantry to destroy

Against Infantry: Mines suppress the squad temporarily, deal a bunch of damage (usually killing at least one squad member) and generally can stop an opponent in his tracks. Mines function as a force multiplier simply because they kill enemy troops as they walk around on the map, but they can be used in support of your troops to work even more effectively. For example, you can put a mine on the obvious flanking route to your MG position, resulting in your opponent’s troops blowing up as they get ready to throw a grenade. They can also be put on critical points, such as the +16 fuel points or the connecting strategic points on Angoville, Victory Points, or on major roads to give you a warning about what your opponent is doing.

Against Vehicles: Land mines do a significant amount of damage to vehicles and also frequently cause engine damage, slowing your opponent’s vehicle to a crawl. This makes them easy prey for a nearby AT gun, Panzerschreck-equipped unit, or a tank of your own. At best, when used with support it can almost guarantee the destruction of that vehicle. At worst, it still puts your opponent’s vehicle out of the fight for a significant amount of time, as he has to move a repair squad out to fix the crippled vehicle.

Buildings: Lastly, I am going to discuss the use of the buildings that are typically spread throughout each map. Though they are frequently used merely to stick a MG in (to provide a more secure base of fire for it,) they have a great deal of value for your ordinary infantry as well. They provide a significant amount of cover that can allow your squad to defeat larger numbers or superior quality opponents.


Out in the open, this rifle squad would be no match for the panzer grenadiers. As it is fortified in a building, the grenadiers must bypass that point to avoid losing men


These volksgrenadiers would normally die in seconds to these infantry squads. Within the building, they can hold out for reinforcements

Also, some squads, such as MP40-equipped Volks and Assault Grenadiers, are devastating to face in the open but do very poor damage to troops in buildings. When you run into these types of troops, you can garrison a nearby building with a Rifle squad or Infantry Section, easily winning the day.

If you approach your CoH game with these ideas of how to make your army work more efficiently to defeat your opponent, your victories will come much easier than they might have otherwise. When using all of these ideas to maximum effect, you will inflict considerable casualties on your opponent while suffering few with your own army. This will drain your opponent of Manpower while preserving your own for teching, purchasing upgrades, or training more soldiers to overwhelm him in later encounters.

Why Piracy Will Not Stop Until Publishers Change

I recently finished an exceptional book, I live in the Future and Here's How it Works by Nick Bilton. The book discusses how everyone, from companies to individuals, has to adapt to the influence that the internet holds in our lives. Unfortunately for the profits of many industries, ranging from films to videogames to music to newspapers, this process is destroying many traditional ways to generate revenue.

Unfortunately, rather than adapting to change, most of these companies are trying to fight it wholesale. Using laws such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the Recording Industry Association of America attempted to scare people out of piracy by suing 261 random downloaders for $150,000 a song. Most of these individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. The Pirate Bay, a notorious piracy site hosting torrents downloaded by millions, recently lost a lawsuit to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The case will of course be appealed and probably go on for years while the website is still up and available for users to download whatever they want.


The Digital Millennium Copyright Act also misuses the national symbol for freedom

However, even if these websites are taken down through legal action and a few hundred people have to pay fines to the RIAA, nothing will change. Increasing laws and stiffer penalties against pirates and websites hosting torrents haven't affected piracy rates in the slightest. Given that millions of people are downloading things all the time around the globe, what are the chances that you will actually be sued for it? Slim to none. Filing lawsuits is an extremely ineffective piracy deterrent. Although I'm certain these statistics are highly inflated, the RIAA claims that music piracy causes losses of $12.5 billion dollars a year. Guess all those lawsuits really paid off for preserving profits eh?


However, the lawsuits did give the RIAA great relations with the public

This problem spawned the other defense publishers have attempted against piracy, securing their files with various forms of copy protection. This protection makes the product's root code harder to hack and then post online for download. Unfortunately, it has proven completely ineffective in preventing theft as a challenge only makes hackers more determined to break into the code.


This man lives for a challenge

Additionally, many of the efforts have been damaging to customers using the products legally. Sony BMG, a former music label, tried to block piracy of their music by including a secret software program that installed a rootkit on user's computers when they used their CDs. This program, which users had no idea was being installed, also created a gigantic vulnerability in the user's computers to malware. After this was exposed, Sony tried to fight it for a while but ended up with a huge recall and the ire of most of its former consumer base.

Videogame publishers have attempted to use software copy prevention for years as well. The earliest efforts of this included CD-keys or codes that had to be entered to install or use the software, which were included in the box the game came with. As these efforts proved largely unsuccessful, third party developers were used to provide copy protection software that was installed along with the game. One of the most infamous of these was StarForce, which, in addition to being ineffective in halting piracy, was suspected to cause damage to user's computers.

All that lawsuits and copy protection accomplish is to piss off the consumer base of companies. If the legit version of a product is worse than the pirated version, is it any wonder that people will choose to pirate it? You can't treat your customers as if they are criminals and then expect them to hand over their money for an inferior product.

What is the actual route to fighting piracy? Releasing a quality product without forcing the customer to deal with a lot of bullshit in purchasing and using it. If you make a product easy to purchase legally, you'll find that your customer base rises dramatically. Look at Itunes-it has sold billions of song downloads in the piracy friendly music world simply because it is extremely easy to purchase from.

Stardock is a company that has ceased to use copy protection for any of its products, and has not suffered any financial woes from this decision. Additionally, they released a bill of rights to explain their policy in depth:

* Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund.
* Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
* Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.
* Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
* Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer.
* Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.
* Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
* Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
* Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
* Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

If every company followed rules such as these, I imagine that companies would find a lot more consumers for their products.

Motion Sensing Technology

Among current generation consoles, the Wii has been extremely successful by focusing on a new way to play games as opposed to improving the current methods of play. Microsoft and Sony are joining the affair by introducing the Kinect and Move, motion sensing devices similar to the Wii controller. The question is, is motion sensing technology just a fad or does it actually bring something unique to the experience?

For most games, the addition of motion sensing technology is not helpful in the least. Games that require character movement still need to use a direction pad to accomplish this, hence the nunchuck attachment that features a d-pad. The sensors are also not always completely accurate in sensing the motion you are making, leading to imprecise control and occasional unnecessary character deaths.


Imagine if this syringe goes in the wrong part of this fellow's liver.

On the other hand, the technology does make some aspects smoother. You can move the cursor around the screen faster than with a regular controller in most cases, allowing for faster reactions in shooting games. Additionally, it makes certain movements more natural, such as turning cranks by spinning the Wii-mote around like a crank instead of mashing A. This certainly makes the game feel more natural to people who don't play games very often, as they can make a movement instead of trying to figure out where the A button is.

However, the largest impact of motion sensors is on the population of gamers. People who never played videogames at all own a Wii and enjoy it greatly. It allows many to feel more like they are part of the action than if they were using a regular controller. It's easier to pick up, you don't have to learn where buttons are, you just move it around. Maybe eventually they'll start playing traditional games.

Downloadable Content

Remember when you could download patches for the game that included new content and it was free? Those were good days. I remember when new maps came out for the first Call of Duty and how much fun it was to get more playtime out of it for FREE! Now you have to pay money for new maps in Modern Warfare 2 and almost every big new release comes with DLC on release that you have to pay for.

I can see why publishers do this-it's easy money for them and people are stuck paying for it if they want the full game experience. The other valid reason I can see for DLC is that it helps prevent piracy to SOME extent by forcing people to download the stuff online after buying the game legitimately. I certainly prefer day 1 DLC over DRM software that afflicts my computer.

Still, there are ways to do DLC well and ways that are kind of being an asshole. Here are the ways to do it right:

1. Don't Charge for DLC that's available the first day of release: If you charge DLC day one you're just making people pay for things that are already in the game they just paid full price for. No extra developer effort was put in, you're just removing part of the game and charging more for it. That's just not right.

2. Don't charge for new maps for FPS/RTS games: It's extremely tiring playing on the same old maps game after game, so many players might be willing to pay for new maps, as seen with all the people who bought the map packs for Modern Warfare 2. However, the reason that you shouldn't charge for these is that they help build the online community and also give the developer goodwill. Both of these will help when you release your next game, as you have a solid group of fans who will be looking forward to it. The reason Modern Warfare 2 got away with charging for it was that it already had a well established fan base. If you're a new series, don't try it.

3. Don't provide DLC that gives specific players advantages: I can't actually think of any game that has done this, but I also want it to stay that way. The whole point of a game is that it's on a level playing field at the beginning so the person with more talent wins. If players can pay money for things that give them an advantage, such as units in RTS games or better guns in FPS games, then the balance is completely fucked.

4. DLC you can charge for: Any DLC that is released after the actual game and took actual development work is fine to charge for. This is akin to an expansion pack, which I'm quite happy to pay for. The Mass Effect series is a good example-they added a few new single player missions you could experience and they were reasonably priced.

Overall, I'm not a big fan of DLC, but if it's similar to an expansion pack in design I am OK with it.