As I mentioned in a recent blog post, I have been using ChatGPT to create a set of Portable 3 x 3 Chaco War wargame rules. They needed a minor amount of tweaking to improve the clarity of the rules but what follows is probably 90% ChatGPT and 10% me.
A 1933 map of Paraguay. The disputed area - the Gran Chaco - is shown shaded in pink.
Portable Chaco War Wargame
A fast-play grid-based wargame representing the difficult jungle and desert warfare of the conflict.
1. Game Setup
- Map: A 3 x 3 (or larger) grid, covered with a mix of open areas, dense jungle, dry scrub, and fortifications.
- Units: Infantry, Machine Guns, Mortars, Cavalry, Artillery, Air Support, and Commanders.
- Command & Control: Each side has a Commander with randomly-generated number of unit activations per turn.
- Fog of War: Hidden movement represents surprise attacks in difficult terrain.
2. Turn Sequence
- Command Phase: Each side rolls a D6 die to determine the number of units that can be activated this turn (each side activates that many units).
- Movement Phase: Activated units move one or two grid area, unless slowed by terrain.
- Combat Phase: Activated units may fire or assault enemy units in adjacent grid areas. (Defending units can fight back.)
- Morale Phase: Units check morale if they have been hit twice or more.
- Supply Phase: Check supply lines (units without supply suffer penalties).
3. Units & Special Rules
Unit | Move (in grid areas) | Weapon Range (in grid areas) | Attack Value | Defence Value | Special Rules |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bolivian Infantry | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | Well equipped, but suffers if moving through jungle. D6 die sore of 3, 4, 5, or 6 needed to move through jungle. |
Paraguayan Infantry | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | Better adapted to the terrain; gains +1 Defence in jungle. |
Machine Guns | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | May not move and fire in the same turn. |
Mortars | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | May not move and fire in the same turn. Can fire over obstacles, but have limited ammunition (D6 die mortar rounds per gun). |
Cavalry | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Can move after attacking (this represents their ability to hit-and-run), |
Artillery | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | May not move and fire in the same turn. Can fire over obstacles, but have limited ammunition (D6 die artillery rounds per gun). |
Air Support | - | - | 3 | - | May be used once per battle. May only target non-jungle grid areas. |
Fortifications | - | - | - | +2 | Provides cover bonus. |
Commanders | 2 | - | 1 | 1 | Boosts morale by adding +1 to morale of any unit in an adjacent grid area.. |
4. Combat
- Both players roll a D6 die and add and subtract their attack/defence values and any modifiers.
- Higher roll wins; loser is hit.
- If the result is a tie, both units are hit.
5. Special Features
- Hidden Movement & Ambushes
- Each side may place dummy counters in jungle/scrub grid areas.
- Units are revealed only when spotted by a unit entering an adjacent grid area and rolling a D6 die score of 4, 5, or 6.
- If an enemy unit moves into a grid area occupied by an enemy unit they have not spotted, they suffer -1 from their defence value.
- Supply & Attrition
- Each unit must be able to trace an unimpeded path to a supply base.
- If cut off for two turns, units suffer -1 on attack values and movement distance.
- Capturing enemy supply base restores half a D6 die score (rounded down) of lost units.
- Morale
- If a unit has taken two or more hits, roll a D6 die:
- 1, 2 or 3: Unit retreats a grid area.
- 4, 5, or 6: Unit holds position.
- Commander in adjacent grid area +1 to any D6 die score.
- Weather Effects
- At the start of each game, roll a D6 die for weather:
- 1 or 2: Extreme Heat: Reduce all movement by 1 grid area.
- 3 or 4: Fog: Ranged attacks suffer -1 attack value.
- 5 or 6: Normal Conditions: No effect.
6. Campaign & Scenarios
- Scenario 1: The Battle of Nanawa (1933)
- Bolivian Objective: Capture Paraguayan defences within 6 turns.
- Paraguayan Objective: Hold the position or repel attackers.
- Special Rule: Paraguayan defenders are fortified and get +1 defence value.
- Scenario 2: Guerrilla Warfare in the Jungle
- Bolivian Objective: Escort a convoy across the jungle to supply a fort.
- Paraguayan Objective: Ambush and destroy at least 2 Bolivian units.
- Special Rule: Paraguayan forces start hidden, Bolivians must scout carefully.
- Scenario 3: The Fall of Fort Boquerón (1932)
- Bolivian Objective: Break through Paraguayan lines before turn 5.
- Paraguayan Objective: Defend the fort; if it falls, retreat to fight another day.
- Special Rule: Mortars and artillery have limited ammunition (D6 rounds per gun).
It is interesting to note that ChatGPT has taken into account the terrain found in ther Gran Chaco and the differences between that Bolivian and Paraguayan infantry. The former were mainly drawn from the Bolivian Altiplano (which is a high semi-arid and arid plateau with a cool and humid climate) and the latter were mainly Guarani who were used to living in the semi-arid, broadleaf jungle and scrub-covered lowland terrain found in the Gran Chaco.
Interesting. My thoughts on this, having run something similar with an earlier version, is "Why"? I write wargames rules because I enjoy writing them (whether anyone else enjoys playing them is a moot point) and I hope to enjoy doing so for many years to come. I enjoy trying ideas and thinking of new mechanisms. I write blog posts and articles and so on because I enjoy writing. I enjoy getting the words to say what I want. I guess it's like some one who is good at woodwork. Sure you can go to IKEA for a table or shelves, but the pleasure of seeing something you made that does exactly what you want must beat that everyday.
ReplyDeleteTrebian,
DeleteIt’s a good question … and a great analogy.
ChatGPT and similar AI apps are here to stay and are going to have an impact on wargaming. What I am doing is seeing if I can utilise their capabilities, so I set ChatGPT a series of tasks about a topic I know something about - the Chaco War - so that I could then judge the results against my own thoughts about creating wargames about that topic.
The results needed tweaking to make sure that they worked and I will be sharing them with other wargamers.
There is an ethical element to my experiments. I did not set parameters as to the resources ChatGPT could use, and I am aware that it could have used work done by other people to help it create the rules it has produced. You and I have books out there in the ether, and the chances are that they have been ‘mined’ by AI apps without our knowledge. It’s something that we may need to give serious thought to.
All the best,
Bob
I agree with Trebian in that I'd rather do the creating (based on experience of other peoples works) myself. (I'm rubbish at carpentry so would go to IKEA (or similar) but if I could make a piece of furniture I think I would prefer to.)
ReplyDeleteMy limited understanding of AI is that it's a system that's learnt to string words together and can scour the online world for relevant records to synthesise and form a "new" work (?), and has the processing power to do this very fast. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
It would be nice if it cited its sources all the same - I'm guessing ChatGPT doesn't?
Maudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteAs much as I enjoy the process of writing my own wargame rules, I have to accept that AI is going to impact that process. My experiments have shown that at present, ChatGPT can trawl the internet, look at various PW rules that are out there, and assimilate the data contained therein to produce something that isn’t perfect but which is certainly useable with some tweaks.
I have been sent a detailed explanation as to how I can create a detailed set of parameters and data that I can direct ChatGPT at. If or when I reach that stage, I will be able to get it to cite its sources,
The use of AI in wargaming is something that I am going to need to investigate and experiment with further, and I will share what I learn with my regular blog readers.
All the best,
Bob
PS. I am told that my blog - if linked with the text of my books and numerous articles - could form the basis of a ‘virtual Bob Cordery’ in the not too distant future. In some ways, this is a bit scary, especially if it could be melded with an AI-generated and animated version of my voice and face! A sort of wargaming Max Headroom! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom)
I can definitely see how AI could be beneficial for fast assimilation of information and I'll certainly be interested in reading about your experiments.
DeleteI remember Max Headroom - a Bob Cordery version would be excellent!
Maudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteAs far as I can see, the AI genie is out of the lamp and we need to understand its strengths and weaknesses. I hope that it can be used to perform useful tasks such as information gathering that will enable human users to concentrate on specific elements of a task. For example, suggesting game mechanisms and period specific elements for inclusion in a set of wargame rules that would then b written by a human author. This is what I have done in the above rules.
All the best,
Bob
I'm impressed with the fact that ChatGPT included rules for supply chains. Given how important they are to any campaign and that supply chains in the Chaco war were especially difficult to maintain they should have a prominent place in any game for that war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, generative AI is here and it's a tool. Nobody HAS to use it but it's useful nonetheless so why not get ahead of the curve?
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteReading the sources I have about the Chaco War, the supply of water in particular as well as food and ammunition were vital to both sides, and that units that were cut off were usually forced to surrender. I assume the ChatGPT used similar sources, hence the importance of supply lines in the rules it created.
As I wrote in reply to Maudlin Jack Tar’s comment, the AI genie is well and truly out of the lamp (or should that be bottle?) and we can either embrace it or try to ignore it. My feeling is that within a few years its use will be so commonplace that we will wonder how we coped without it.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteThe post post discussion is as interesting as the post itself. I rather thought I'd be 'ag'in' the concept, and there are ethical issues involved. But whilst reading methought of Picasso's remark: 'Good artists copy; great artists steal'. After all, I'm not above using others' concepts for writing my own rule sets.
I can see how the ChatGPT system would be a boon to some issues that have come up in my own pre-dreadnought games. Of course, they are founded upon the Portable Pre-dreadnought game, but, whilst researching ships I decided to include in my navies, I found issues I don't know enough to resolve satisfactorily.
One is the matter of 13.5-inch guns on some pre-dreadnought warships - and the 16-inch guns on 'Victoria' (which has found a place in Ruberia's 1st Battle Squadron). I also based the dice rolls upon 4 guns, rather than upon ship type. That complicates things - and I'm not sure in a good way!
Gotta go - breakfast is calling...
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI tend to agree with Picasso when it comes to wargame design. I was at our local gaming group last night and was discussing WH40K and said that it always struck me as being a typical World War Two wargame with a few bits of extra bling added. Everyone else taking part in the conversation was in their late twenties or early thirties and queried what I said. No surprisingly, it turns out that none of them had ever heard of Donald Featherstone or Lionel Tarr, both of whose rules were plundered quite heavily when the first drafts of WH40K were written.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion about the use of AI in wargaming and can foresee a time in the not too distant future when ‘old school’ will mean a wargame without an AI input!
Your point about the arming of ships with 13.5-inch guns when 16-inch guns were available is an interesting one. As many of them were built in Woolwich, which is about a mile away from where I live, I really ought to know the answer.
As far as I can tell, the 16-inch guns were difficult and very time-consuming to manufacture and pushed the manufacturing process to the limit of what was then possible. The 13.5-inch guns were easier to manufacture and - probably of equal importance as far as the Navy was concerned - faster to load and fire. So, it was a choice between one big punch every five minutes or several less powerful ones every three minutes … and in the end the latter won out. This can be seen clearly in the arming of the Admiral-‘class’ battleships where one (the prototype) had 4 x 12-inch guns, one had 2 x 16-inch guns, and the rest had 4 x 13.5-inch guns.
I am hoping to fight a fleet action with my Monopoly battleships over the weekend, but I’ve learned never to plan too far ahead these days as domestic duties have a tendency to intervene unexpectedly!
All the best,
Bob