|
发表于 2010-6-15 14:25:18
|
显示全部楼层
呵呵,想不到我在群里的几句个人看法,居然会被写成整个北京战棋党,我居然成了“总代表”……
不过,就算是要对我说的做批斗,是否可以把前后都看完,不要这样只看一段,然后就认定我有这么大能力代表整个北京战棋党。
阿星(859031814) 10:10:08
各位前辈,如何能从兵棋中学到挥指艺术啊!
林恩37(87693043) 10:10:40
对待每一次推演,总结自己的错误,而不是别人的。
林恩37(87693043) 10:10:53
对待每一条规则,总结设计思路,而不是质疑。
阿星(859031814) 10:11:03
哦!
阿星(859031814) 10:11:13
那我现在怎么办?
我只能玩电脑兵棋!
林恩37(87693043) 10:11:19
对待每一次投骰子,总结为什么不是最坏结果,而不是抱怨骰运
阿星(859031814) 10:11:31
阿星(859031814) 10:11:40
心态很好!
林恩37(87693043) 10:12:02
电脑兵棋……对我个人而言,是属于被过滤掉的东西。
林恩37(87693043) 10:18:43
阿星(859031814) 10:15:15
电脑为什么不好呢?
电脑不是人脑,再精良的AI,也无法做到人脑的地步。
网络对战是可以,不过在电脑上对战,你只是在做别人给你设计好的路线,你不需要考虑规则,你不需要去思考规则如何制定的,你不需要去质疑规则是什么样的,只需要胜了就完了……这个态度,却恰恰是兵棋所不应该具备的
林恩37(87693043) 10:19:20
兵棋最有意义的在于:规则。
规则是开放的,是要去验证、质疑、学习、认识的。
综上所述,我说的“电脑兵棋”是特指计算机平台上的兵棋,也就是大多数人所能接触到的兵棋。而特定的电子兵棋,只有接触了才知道,所谓的优越性其实还是理想而非当前的现实。
然后下面,是我的看法:
对于AI方面,AI不如人的选择,我这样理解是否有错?AI只是在做好了预想之后的多种组合体,即便是再复杂,也不会有创造性的思维。如果没有创造性的思维,那么就会有AI漏洞,我很想请教一下,有多少人在对抗AI时,是以钻AI漏洞为耻的?
从AI再延伸至交互方面,举例一个回合流程:
A方移动阶段,B方所有下达掩护射击命令的单位都可以在任何时刻向进入其射程的A方单位射击。
手工上的表现方式:A方行动棋子,一步一走,B方直到他认为可以的地方喊停,即可宣告射击。
电子上的表现方式:对AI上,若B方为AI,无所谓。对人战时就会发生这样的问题:A方的单位每走1格,就要向B方弹出1个对话框,询问是否射击,每走1格,询问1次……直到B方选择射击或脱离射程为止。如果1个单位的机动力为20,那么这个单位最大可能要在机动时,向对方电脑弹出20次对话框。大家可以测试一下,这样等待1个单位机动时,连续弹“是否射击”窗口时对各位的影响如何。
说到这里,或许有人会说:即时不就可以解决这个问题了?即时是很符合实际环境,不过,各位是否想过,以目前的技术水平,即时是让人体会的是什么?不是思考、不是验证,而是让你如何在比对手短的时间内,正确的操作鼠标。等什么时候声控命令的准确性高到一定程度的时候,即时兵棋才会真正的发挥作用。同时,又牵扯到另一个问题。各位玩的电子兵棋,1个屏幕就可以清晰的俯瞰下整个地图的吗?同样大小的纸质地图,是否只是需要转下眼珠?鼠标拖动和眼光一扫的便捷与否,整体效果的把握,到底哪个更合适呢?
对我个人而言,电子兵棋的操作,我不习惯于把屏幕拖来拖动、看着无数个确认跳来跳去、必须要和别人比鼠标点击速度而不是思考方式。如果让我推一款手工兵棋和一款电子兵棋,我推电子兵棋的时间要远远长于手工兵棋(包括摆棋时间),而且,在认识兵棋中所表现的情况与规则上的认识,我个人认为手工兵棋所给予我的远远超出电子兵棋。
就有人说,规则是可以利用的,那么,他的规则为什么会被利用?如果真的是不合理、不符合当前需要,立刻修正就是了。手工兵棋的规则本身就是开放的,并且很多兵棋规则中,都附有设计笔记,说明一些特殊规则的设计想法和目的。这些的根本目的,就是让推演者可以更直观的了解规则的设定原则,去真正的理解这条规则的意义。在使用中因忽视了某条规则,而出现失误的时候,会对这条规则的记忆更深刻,会更深入的去了解这条规则的含义。
“而战争往往本身就是没有规则的,反而不应该让具体的裁决过程和规则来限制实际推演者, 这又成了不可调和的矛盾。”这句出自楼上某人的一句话,那么我想请问一下,在同样的条件下,是电子兵棋的规则修正快呢?还是手工兵棋的规则修正快?
如果一个人对历史和军事一点兴趣都没有的话,他是不会去接触兵棋的。但如果对于一个为了感受军事和历史的人来说,他的娱乐性到底是“对战中胜负的爽快”?还是“学习从没体验过的战争经验的认知”?
起码,我不认为兵棋的目的是为了表现前者。
对于兵棋本身,他的实际作用,旨在突出每一次命令的选择,上下级之间的换位思考、计划突然被打乱时的把握决策,而不是一种畅快。兵棋主要的对象,是指挥官和参谋官,在他们的工作中,每一个细节、每一次判断、每一次决心都是一场斗争。如何权衡和把握这斗争,兵棋做了最好的诠释:分析与质疑。兵棋在确定条件和不确定因子之间的相互作用下,使环境复杂化,问题多样化。在对抗练习的时候,思考分析、确定合理性的时间自然是最重要的。在自己需要规则支撑下才能完成裁决,这样才能使推演者更清晰的了解自己面临的问题,如果没有记住规则而获得了失利,那么就说明他没考虑到这条规则的重要性,也就是没考虑到这个规则所要表现的内容的重要性。这本身就是问题:在电子兵棋中,做分析判断的不是推演者,而是电子兵棋固化好的规则,分担了推演者需要必备的常识,而这种偷懒式的提醒,又造成了另外一个误区,如果说某条规则在某些条件下已经不符合实际需求,但是电子兵棋中的规则却依旧跟着程序,做出了判断,这点推演者该如何认识其含义和分析其是否符合实际?
当然,有人可以说:可以让推演电子兵棋的人先看规则,再推演,那样不是不可以,不过,这不还是让推演者去学习规则吗?而且,单纯的看规则和实际运用规则之间的差距,能让推演者体会多少,恐怕只有推演者实际接触过之后才明白吧。
有些人认为:手工兵棋在推演中,是察言观色很重要的,我却不这么感觉:在推演手工兵棋时,是没有功夫(有些时候是没有机会)看对方的态度的,如果只是把希望寄托在察言观色上,那么他是在思考问题,还是在想怎么让自己赢?
不论是专业的还是民间的兵棋,兵棋追求的是结果吗?显然不是,如果有人想用一个确定与不确定之间反复交替变化的过程得到的结果去说明问题……那么我想这么问一下:兵棋是预言机?
兵棋只能分析结果,而不是去确定一个结果。而分析的每一个过程,正是通过各种分析,才能有一个预案,这样才能更好的有的放矢。如果有人认为计算机可以细致到模拟人的细胞活动,因此做出的作战模拟结果就是真正的结果,那我也无话可说。
从美军正式使用计算机做运筹分析的那天起,就有人有这个担心手工兵棋是否保得住自己的地位,不过至少到了几十年后的今天,仍然有人“还”在担心这个问题……估计这个担心,还会继续下去。
手工兵棋确实有些地方属于条件限制,无法达到电子兵棋的快速,比如初始配置上和复盘上,这些重复性的非分析性工作,是电子兵棋做得很好的地方。以及双盲时在数据传输上,电子兵棋要快于手工兵棋。我是来讨论和说明自己看法的,因此对于电子兵棋的优点,我不会否认和回避。
电子兵棋对我们来说,快速、方便和远程对战:只需要自己和电脑,即可以初步的感受到兵棋是个什么东西,而对场地、团体没有任何的要求,你也不需要因为厚厚的英文规则而发愁 (虽然不少原版专业的电子兵棋都带很厚的规则书) 。但这点仅仅局限于爱好者较少,不集中的情况下造成的问题。而如北京战棋党本身,有了固定的组织,有了如老韩这样可以义务翻译的朋友聚在一起,自然而然的就会体现出手工兵棋的特点。大家每一次推演不单纯是在考虑:德军为什么没在诺曼底给盟军赶下海的问题,而是考虑为什么规则会这样制订?这个规则和历史或实际上有什么关联?继而发展到各自回去翻资料,查找情况。最终确定规则是否符合实际情况或者其设计思想是为了告诉推演者什么。这才是我个人和北京战棋党(限平时参加活动的人,这里我倒是可以代表一下……)的乐趣所在,而不是单纯的谁输谁赢。
以上,并不是为自己做辩解,只是发表自己的看法。除某条括号内说明文字,其他内容只代表个人,而非战棋党全体。请各位不要被误导。北京战棋党内又不是没有玩电子兵棋的,而且不乏高手,我没权利代表。
同时,也对借此夹带私货的某人回敬一句:当事情不了解缘由时,就给与自己有私怨的乱扣帽子,这种事也就你干得出来了。别人没有时间扯你,不是因为你有本事,而是因为更多的时候,应付你为了抬高自己非要胡说八道兼无理搅三分的挑衅上而浪费宝贵的时间太可惜了。
再回正题:
说了这么多个人看法,恐怕有人会抬出《兵棋手册》来说邓尼根认为电子兵棋比手工兵棋优越之类的话来。我还是把《兵棋手册》的部分内容贴出来吧,以供大家探讨。(如果有我个人遗漏掉的地方,希望大家可以补充章节号,毕竟我的英文不好,手中的中英双译稿看起来还是比较麻烦,没注意到的地方很多,希望大家可以帮助指出,谢谢。)
引用一下邓老先生在做手工兵棋和电子兵棋的一些比较:
2.25
Computer wargames have a number of notable differences from their paper predecessors. The principal differences are: Easier Rules- The rules of the computer game are embedded in the program itself. There is still a lot to be learned, as the computer wargame is like any other computer program and you still have to learn what pushing each button will do. More and more computer wargames have their documentation embedded in the program. Once you learn what key (or icon) brings up the "Help" information, you can dispense with the printed instructions altogether. There is a great deal of variation in how easy to use computer wargames are. But the trend over the last ten years has been to get easier, and the computer wargames have always been easier to learn than their paper equivalents.
Faster Startup—The bane of paper wargames has always been the tedious process of laying out the map and setting up the playing pieces before you could even begin play. A major advantage of computer wargames is that, in most cases, the "playing pieces" are already where they should be in order to start the game. Those games that allow "free setup" are still a problem, as you then have to use the keyboard or mouse to place the units. In general, the technology in computer wargames is making this setup problem easier with each passing year.
Hidden Information—A major advantage of computer wargames is that you can easily experience the "hidden information" aspect of military campaigns. It's not for nothing that spies are shot in wartime. Secrecy is often a matter of life and death and the ability of the computer to keep you in the dark most of the time accurately recreates this aspect of warfare. On the down side, this makes pre-play analysis of the game more difficult than is the case with manual games.
Saving the Game—Next to the hassle of setting up the game, manual wargames are also wretched when you want to put aside a game to finish later. The map is a large object and all those playing pieces can be easily displaced. Computers suffer no such problems. Press the right key and your game in progress is saved to a disk. You can take it up again whenever you want.
Superclerk—A computer is very good at computing, and keeping track of things. Manual wargames always suffered when burdened with too much record keeping. Yet data, and calculation, is what makes a wargame different from chess and capable of recreating history. Computers can excel in this department, and often do.
The Little Picture—One major advantage of paper wargames is that you can see everything. The map is big, but it's all there in front of you. Computers only have that little screen, which is often seen (literally) as a "window" looking at a larger map. You have to scroll around the larger map, although many computer wargames have the option of popping up a "strategic map" which shows key features of the entire playing area. As computer displays become capable of higher resolution (which is cheaper to achieve than larger displays) this becomes less of a problem. But the paper games still have an edge.
Black Box Syndrome—Another advantage of paper games is that you know why things are happening a certain way in the game. All the rules and probability tables are right there in front of you. Yes, it takes a lot of effort to wade through all that detail. but you do end up with a good idea of how the inner workings of the game function. A popular benefit of this is the opportunity to change the games rules and probability tables. Many players do this, and that's how garners eventually turn into game designers. Computer wargames show you very little of how it does its thing. The computer program just does it, leaving you sometimes muttering about mysterious "black boxes." Naturally, you can't change the program either. This inaccessibility puts off a lot of garners who started out cm manual wargames. But increasingly, new wargamers have only seen computer wargames. Some of these new garners still admit to loss when they realize how much more enjoyable the game would be if they knew what was going on inside it and could make their own changes. Computer wargame designers have become aware of this and increasingly, computer wargames have options to modify its procedures and also let the player know what's going on inside the black box.
Paper Clones and Silicon Masterpieces- The earliest (and some of the current) computer wargames were basically clones (often quite literally) of manual wargames. Over the years, more and more computer wargames have concentrated more on the computers strengths and less on trying to clone a paper wargame. There are more and more Silicon Masterpieces being produced as computer wargames find more ways to take advantage of the computers unique properties. Paper wargames are different, in some ways superior and don't clone well.
再引用一下邓老先生在书中对电脑兵棋怀有信心的段落。
6.1
As personal computers became more powerful, the games that could be written for them became equally more impressive, But wargames account for only about five to ten percent of all computer games sold. About a third of the computer games sold are role-. playing games (generally of the Dungeons & Dragons variety, Another 20 percent were action/arcade type games, despite the completion from the cheaper Nintendo type game machines. About 25 percent of games sold were of the simulator variety, usually putting the player in the cockpit of an airplane. The future, obviously, is computer wargames. You can get a better idea of where that future is heading by taking a look at its recent past.
这段中虽然邓老先生在说电子兵棋会有好的发展,但是,他在这段里所说的wargames是包含模拟器系列的军事游戏,然后在整个电子游戏内与RPG等类型游戏比较的发展(90年代早期的比例数据)。这段,希望不要有人误解。
6.3
By the mid 1980s, many manual (paper) wargames had I: directly transferred to computers. This meant displaying a hex grid on the computer screen. While the screen was much smaller than the traditional game maps, this was gotten around by allowing the computer game player to look at different porno on entire map. In effect, the computer screen became a window on a larger map. While the small screen was one disadvantage, there was an even larger problem with these computer wargames. The player had to use the keyboard and/or mouse device to move the playing pieces around. On the positive size, the player did not have to learn the game rules, as most of the procedures were imbedded in the computer program. The player did have to figure out how to use the program, but computer wargames became easier and easier to use as programmers learned more about what players were most comfortable with.
One thing wargamers were not comfortable with was the inability to know exactly what was going in inside the wargame. One major advantage of the manual games was that all the numbers and procedures were right there in front of you. Not only could the player see how the game did its stuff, but the player could, and often did, change things he did not agree with. This was not possible with computer games.
The time factor for playing manual games, and the fact that the!' could not be easily left sitting somewhere to be finished later (animals and small children easily upset these games in progress), gave Computers another edge. While there will probably always be some manual games, computerized wargames are definitely the format of the future.
这段是真正邓尼根对电子兵棋有信心的段落。请各位仔细看完,再来说,电子兵棋在当前的条件下,是否达到了邓尼根的期待?
而在全书中,邓尼根对手工兵棋的肯定也从没停过:
9.11
Designing wargames requires a special, and rare, set of mental tools. Go through the last chapter of this book again if you have to he reminded of this. The manual wargames, unlike the computer wargames, bring players into intimate contact with the details of the games design and mechanics and for this reason there were very few people who could handle playing the manual games. In effect, the audience for manual wargames is pretty much restricted to those who are capable of designing them. Early on, I realized this and found that it only took a little Pressure to convince potential designers that they could do it, and many of them did. As a result, the several dozen designers I trained in the 1960s and 1970s can he found today designing a lot of the games used by the military (as well as doing commercial products, and sometimes both). Many more wargamers simply took me at my word "if you can play them, you can design them."
Computer wargames are a different matter, as you do not have personally manipulate and comprehend all the details of sod, highly automated games. To design a decent computer wargamt it's still safest to go back to a manual design first.
邓尼根在 2000 年 3 月 22 日为《兵棋手册》重新说明中的段落。
Board wargames still had advantages, the major one being that you knew exactly what the game was doing, but many wargamers knew that had a downside in that you had to master a lot of rules and procedures to make a manual game go. But those with the right combination of skills, determination and interest in historical what ifs did play the games and thus became capable of designing games. Most of those garners were not aware that simply playing manual games turned them into game designers, although over time most of them realized it. Not all of these gamers had the urge to design their own, but most eventually realized that they certainly knew enough about how the games worked to do so if they wanted to. Unfortunately, this proliferation of game designers came at the same time, the 1980s, that computer wargames began to take over. While computer wargames had many advantages over manual games, they had one major minus for game designers. Computer games did not reveal their internal workings. Oh, sure, some computer game designers, and publishers, often former board wargamers, went out of their way to provide thick manuals showing all the details of what was going on in the game. And many gamers appreciated this, but many just took the buzz from knowing all that stuff was there and otherwise ignored it. With board wargames, you could not ignore the details of how the game did what it did. With computer wargames, you could, and most gladly did. You could get into computer wargames a lot more quickly when you were relieved of the need to master a lot of the games mechanics. Moreover, the easier access to computer wargames meant there were far more people able to enjoy wargames.
One can make the case that wargame sales are better than ever, if one simply changes the definition of a wargame. That's what the market has done in response to market demands. But that's like saying that historical fiction should he reflagged as history books because few people will buy and read real history books anymore. No, the problem is that historical wargames were always a small market because they emphasized information and analysis at the expense of entertainment. Any gamer who was not a wargamer immediately saw that. Now that computers have made it possible for many more people to play wargames, you should not be surprised that most of them want to be entertained, not put through a training course. There is a new type of wargame available, and this includes the science fiction and fantasy games that involve combat. It has been noted that some of these garners will move up (over or down, depending how you look at it) to historical wargames. That's the best one can hope for, as there has never, ever, been broad appeal for realistic combat simulations.
But there are a lot more negatives. There are fewer wargames being published. And those that are published tend to be simpler and less accurate. Unlike manual games, you can't see what's going on in computer games. You cannot do much with the basic mechanics in a computer wargame. Manual wargames were quite different. While the rules may have sometimes been unclear (or worse), most players adapted by (intentionally or otherwise) changing the game procedures to suit their own tastes or opinions. I was quick to make the most of this problem by doing what many computer game programmers did, I turned a bug into a feature. Players who regularly mucked about with game mechanics, I noted often, were performing one of the more important tasks performed in game development. No prototype of a game went far without a lot of tweaking. Computer wargames go through the same process. But once the code is closed and the gamma version is shipped, the users cannot further tweak the game. This has caused a significant divide between those players who played a lot of manual games and those who have known only computer wargames. In effect, there is software generation of garners and a mushware generation.
Mushware is my term (borrowed from a programmer who worked for me years ago) for what people do with complex procedures in their brain, without benefit of a computer. Mushware was also the reason why the market for manual was never that large. Only a small portion of the population comes equipped to handle mushware. The ones who were exposed to manual wargames became, whether they wanted to or not, wargame designers. The mushware gamers could not avoid understanding how the games worked, and in excruciating detail. It did not surprise me that many of today's (middle aged) programmers were manual wargamers. The grognards were the first geeks. If you could handle manual wargames, programming was no great challenge. When PCs first came out, I took it for granted that most wargamers would glom onto that new toy. Our surveys indicated that wargamers were much quicker to acquire PCs than the general population. And it didn't surprise me that so many wargamers who were not programmers, were soon eagerly learning BASIC or ASM. In my last two years at SP1, the many PCs we had around the office were soon taken over, later during the weekly Friday night play test sessions, with garners using or developing software to play, develop or analyze wargames.
Many manual wargamers went on to develop computer games (wargames and games in general.) But in the 1990s, you saw the emergence of developers who had no manual wargames experience. This trend will continue, meaning more and more wargames will be designed by people with no mushware experience. This may not be noticed for quite some time, if ever. The mushware generation grew up with games that emphasized accuracy and historical realism. Manual games kept the designers honest, as the players could see how the game worked and figure out for themselves if they thought the designers approach was on target or not. Computer wargames plunged the games inner workings into darkness. Most garners don't care, the games are easier to use and that sells games more than anything else. The mushware generation will pass from the scene
The number of complex computer wargames published (increasingly by small outfits, who distribute via the web and mail) has been shrinking. And those that do get done have less glitzy and less elaborate interfaces. Much lower budgets than the mainline computer games. Those few garners who still sought out complex, or simply realistic, computer wargames were willing to forego a lot of the glitzy graphics. Many of the garners who prefer the historically accurate computer wargames started out with, or still play, manual wargames, and actually prefer their computer wargames to look like manual games, complete with the hexagon grid.
邓尼根在1993年版本的《兵棋手册》中介绍文字结尾部分:
(很抱歉,我手里没有93版本的英文原文,只有友人提供的翻译版。)
“本书很多内容仍然只涉及手工兵棋。这是因为即使是电脑兵棋也来自于手工兵棋。也许手工兵棋看上去比较粗糙,但是如果你不首先理解手工兵棋的规则,你就无法利用电脑进行电脑兵棋编程设计。
当我考虑写一本关于电脑兵棋的书籍时,我立刻意识到,如果我不以手工兵棋作为开始,读者对兵棋的理解将不会和我希望的那样深入。所有兵棋都起源于最早最简单的兵棋形式:象棋。在兵棋飞入更广阔的电脑化未来之前,手工兵棋就是现实和复杂象棋发展的巅峰。”
从上面引述《兵棋手册》中的内容上看,估计一定会有人说:我是来玩兵棋的,不是去设计兵棋的。这么说也许没错,不过,请各位自己静下心来想一想,谁没有想自己设计兵棋的想法呢?当初开始玩兵棋的想法就是为了娱乐吗?为自己的梦想而付出的时间与精力,是不会觉得累和麻烦的。上面的话并非为了说明手工兵棋一定比电子兵棋优秀,只是想表达一种态度:玩兵棋,最重要的是了解兵棋、认识兵棋,而了解认识的前提在规则,不论你玩的是手工兵棋还是电子兵棋,只要你对这款兵棋的规则了解,知道规则的涵义,那么,电子兵棋和手工兵棋除了在相互之间各自繁琐的地方,还有什么不同呢? |
|