“I Think” I have you now.

Can you GUESS the best move?

Once upon a time in a state far away I played a game of X-Wing with my best friend and learned to love it immediately.  In this game I had to pick a maneuver from a limited amount of choices, some rewarding and some punishing, all while anticipating what my opponent might choose himself.  Would I put myself in harms way with no return on damage or would I outsmart of choose the most optimal option.

I found this back and forth exciting.  While I also found it exciting to run his Lambda off the board with ions I realized that is not very much fun for him and his experience.  I won the game by taking away my opponent’s chance to choose the dial, a game situation called Choice - Negative Player Experience (NPE).

As I left gaming for my sanity of my wallet (looking at you Legend of the Five Rings and losing all my Battletech miniatures) I did not immediately pick up the game.  Upon returning home my wife out of guilt of all the comics she read suggested I start playing X-Wing so I started showing up to a local gaming store waiting for anyone, ANYONE to play a game.  Most were playing Sails of Glory so I started to learn the game but didn’t want to buy in….I wanted to play X-Wing.

Once diving in the game, I quickly learned the choice of actions is a fundamental part of the game and could squeeze out victories with attention to flying and action economy hence my dive into B-Wings and FCS.  I know theoretically more ship is better but I always found flying 3 of them with special abilities and weapons.  So, while I enjoyed “combos” and “action economy” I also loved flying the TIE Interceptor purely for the maneuvering space.  I even played around with A-Wings finding that they really sucked as blockers (looking at you TIE Fighter).  I picked them up again after they gained Autothrusters (action economy) and Proton Rockets.    Why did I try that combo?  The dreaded Decimator with all the stress mechanics.  My B-Wings were dead since the dial was suppressively limited in comparison to the Decimator.  There were little to no options against a large based ship because I could not turn around or really go past.  The maneuver “punishment” had grown beyond the dial to the opponent’s combinations and the opponents dial.

This became the turning point where I didn’t just have awareness of dials but how they impacted the game in multiple facets.  The concepts of reward and punishment grew perhaps to be called open and restrictive.  The battle concepts, the tactics, formation flying with multiple types of ships, and synergies took a whole new level of understanding.  But damn that Phantom.  It broke the game.  Dials no longer mattered because whatever you picked, the enemy always had an answer.  I call this Knowledge – NPE.

I also grew tiresome of large ships moving faster then small ships.  A 4-straight maneuver on a large ship matches the fastest TIEs and A-Wings.  Now when I watch A New Hope (ANH) I get so frustrated watching the Millennium Falcon flying slower than the TIE Fighters.  Doesn’t the pilot know they can go faster?  After a few maneuvers those TIES are chasing you and never will catch up, set your 4-straight on the dial.  Why are you letting them Strafe you?  So now my movies are losing their glamour.  Thanks FFG. 

Over time, I noticed a trend that new ships were more exciting to the community because the dials were more open, meaning more maneuvers and/or less stress generated maneuvers.  This gives pilots more options on where they want to be, reducing the cost in deciding where to be at the end of activation.  Still had to pick the right one but that is upon you.  No longer was a decision an optimal choice for this turn to setup the right decision 3 turns later but rather the right decision this turn.  Games become more about right now and not future battle state development.  Some of the Community became disappointed.

When the Bumpmasters…..ahem….Jumpmasters came out I basically threw my hands in the air and said this will be a staple to any and all of my Scum lists.  This was the ship I needed when I flew to B’s with bumpers back in the earlier waves.  This will be crazy and I bought 3.   I missed the Deadeye Torpedo options which is embarrassing as I fly munitions quite a bit for fun (and tournaments as I have flown B-Wings in 5 out of 8 Premier events the last 3 years).  I became very concerned the developers had NO CLUE about the importance of the dial and how it impacted the game.  So while everyone was freaking out about the Torp Boats and then Dengaroo….I kept giving the dial the stink-eye.  I knew where the core problem resided, the rest were amplifiers of brokenness.  If the Jumpmaster had the Hawk Dial, would it be so prominent?  I for one do not believe so.  I practiced flying Trip-Jumps with B-Wing dials and it SUCKED.  The YT-2400 at that point became a better blocking ship.

I had hope the developers learned their mistake but I knew all hope became lost when the Shadowcaster reared its ugly head.  Green 3-Turns.  Interceptors, Defenders, A-Wings and other small based ships were ANGRY….”Why????” they asked.  “Why??” did the developers hate them.  But not only did it have Green 3-Turns, it could still go a 1 with no stress.  It could go fast and slow.  I am not going to talk about my belief that acceleration/de-accelerations was baked into the dials at the beginning and the design decisions since Wave 3 ignoring this constraint.

So with all this “Dial Creep”, pretty much the only caveat has been the Imperial ships.  New Imperials are limited by maneuvers, which is really backwards to me as they are supposed to be the cheaper more maneuverable ships.   When I saw dials like the TIE/sf come out I am very happy and glad.  At least some fundamentals were still leaking into the game.

But I failed.  I did not succeed in reaching out to FFG to talk about the importance of the maneuver dial.  I thought I had one more year.  I was wrong (not the first time in timeline assessment).  Therefore, I have said some comments and have been called out and hopefully this blog(s) will not be complaining but explaining my thoughts and concerns.  I want to be clear.  X-Wing 2.0 is needed to be right with the Developers, so they can start releasing less broken products.  However, I believe the old X-Wing is dead and the maneuver dials are the proof.

So why am I calling that X-Wing 2.0 (E2) has a fundamental gaming problem after only a few dials have been released?  Because the same general trend for the past 3 years is evident again in the dials shown in released pictures.  More maneuver options, less punishment, more rewards, less decision making based on available maneuvers and just more on just guessing (because it is now more guessing) where your opponent will try to go.

Let me explain in more details even though I have ran over time writing the fluff and not the why…..and now receiving wife aggro.  (perhaps I will update this later section).

When a player is trying to determine if they can block a ship, they must determine where that ship may possibly go.  On a decision tree difficulty, is a stressed Y-Wing, Protectorate Starfighter (Fang Fighter), or TIE Silencer the hardest or easiest to determine?  The TIE Silencer can do 3 banks that the Fang Fighter can not take so there are 2 more additional positions that it can go you must make a decision upon.  The Y-Wing is the most predictable since they can only take straights to clear stress.  The Fang Fighter is pretty maneuverable so it is still in the harder category but not as much as the TIE Silencer.  “But Wait” you say.  “Bumping is an after affect of space resources in a game, it is not necessary” True, but this also applies also to arc angles.  Where will the arcs be after moving?  Where will the ship be after moving?  If actions were not important then stress mechanics would not be important but any good player would tell you actions ARE important.  So therefore, stress is important.   

Now take 2.0 and instead of limiting ship dials to bring back more challenging maneuver decisions, they are now increased.  The Y-Wing E2 is no longer limited to straight maneuvers so now your UNCERTAINTY increases.  Your decision tree becomes more difficult.  The Y-Wing E2 can now bank, lose the stress, and then Barrel Roll (for a stress of course).  At range 3 this will not be a significant change but at range 1 this could potentially change the damage race along with following turn decisions. 

Why is an increase in Uncertainty important?  It makes your decisions more a guess, not knowledge base with an increase of catastrophic failure.  What are your options.  Well, that is a whole complete topic of discussion that will be hashed out in podcasts and articles in the following months.  The key becomes your decisions will move toward luck and positive/negative consequences.  More variety, not necessarily based on skill but luck.  Can you guess the best move?

What exactly are more open dials in E2 really changing?  Making maneuver decisions upon game-state knowledge decreases while making guesses increases.   Will some new mechanics such as actions loss help, perhaps?  Will it balance, perhaps?  But has knowledge-NPE increased, I am betting on it.

The increase in maneuver options means for you as a player, you have less knowledge of where your opponent may end up to accomplish what he needs to win/survive in a game.  He can now pick any and nearly all maneuvers.  This means your ability to fail in picking the correct or optimal move increases. You just became a worse or luckiest pilot in the galaxy.  Congratulations.

Several ships needed to have improved dials, either removing stress or adding additional maneuvers.  Some that come to mind is the Y-Wing, B-Wing, HWK-290 as examples.  But not all ships needed to have their dials improved.  The jury is still out as we don’t have full knowledge of other changes.  Do you think FFG is only going to improve a few iconic ships?  I for one doubt it very much.

After the doom and gloom, is there any positives in X-Wing 2.0 Yes, there are so many great things in E2 and I will not list them all.   Will it still be a fundamentally fun game, yes.  Will veterans love it.  I don’t know but most likely.  Will there be fundamental flaws, yes.    The question becomes, with improved maneuvers, will it still be as much fun?

I do know the approach to the game will have to change.  More ships will fall into the Arc Dodging maneuver roll but not necessarily have the Push the Limits (PTL) to Barrel Roll (BR) and Boost.  Will this make a difference, most likely.  Will new tactics be developed?  Of course.  This is a great time of mental growth and exploration.  I for one hope that the maneuver dials will not impede future growth of the game and lose it differentiation from other games.

Don’t take my writing as a truly negative approach to the new X-Wing 2.0 game.  It is going to be SUPER fun, it is the same cost as a single Wave for a faction, less so for future factions.  So many improvements have been made.  This blog is about 1 of 3 aspects I am disappointed in or have concerns.  I truly hope that I am wrong and everything is good.

Should Department of Defense develop their own OS similar to LINUX distributions?

My experience, evaluation of the market place, goal of Net-Centricity, and the current automation challenges leads me to believe that Department of Defense should develop and maintain its own LINUX type of distribution. In this series of blog postings I am going to offer my observations, research, knowledge, and conceptualization on a fundamental change in the approach of automation system development for the Department of Defense.

Why should a DoD LINUX be considered?

While serving in Iraq, my duties included processing paperwork to fund several automation systems along with contractual obligations and work schedule review. In addition, for several months I facilitated a round house update brief and informal issue discussions for automation systems that originated in intelligence sections, later increased participation to any systems that touched the intelligence communities. Unfortunately, quite a few challenges continued to create difficulties requiring developers, programmers, and Defense Industry to quickly react and modify systems to ensure soldiers success on the automation system. However, these reactions require continuous resources in labor and funding along with strong coordination, ultimately costing both the Defense Industry profit and the taxpayer.

One overwhelming challenge continuing to exasperate me is the multitude of Operating Systems (OS) used for the various devices, systems, and servers in the U.S. Army and Department of Defense. The OSes range from WindowsXP, Windows2000, Windows 98, UNIX distributions (Solaris), LINUX distributions (Red Hat, LynxOS, Linux VR) and many more. Now include the multitude of software expected to function seamlessly together, some OS specific and others cross platform. Add in the consideration of the updates and patches required to keep up with security and fixing bugs, especially if the software is in a spiral development model and the complexity is drastic. When considering several software packages are directly linked to the Operating System, the ability to upgrade either software or OS becomes impossible or cost prohibited. With all of the options, patches, variations, and operating systems, the Information Assurance demand continues to be a required area of vast resources (time and personnel). All in all, there are vast amounts of systems (combining all the hardware and software) that erode from seamless interoperability.

While facilitating discussion, I observed that multiple automation systems either had been developed or were in development for a requirement; each developer using different operating software, different mapping software, different database structure and software, and different communication software. In addition, I realized that nearly (not all) military systems gain usefulness using the core components of a Kernel, database, mapping, and communications. However, different users/customers required different features and I do not believe a single provider can sufficiently meet all the users’ requirements. This invalidates a single Defense Industry provider but does not eliminate the system integrator.

“The Concept”

Recognizing the challenges I mentioned above along with quite a few more to be addressed later, I started developing a concept I called Joint Application Computing (JAC) with the motto “You don’t know JAC.” The concept is in the infancy and therefore is missing critical components and is quite rough. Hopefully in time the concept becomes polished and adopted by the Department of Defense.

The Agency - The Department of Defense will create an agency with the purpose of building an OS distribution using the GPL concept. The agency uses military programmers, civilian programmers, and contracting vehicles (long term, short term, and problem specific) to meet technical requirements. They will maintain the kernel, evaluate and manage any collaboration efforts for modification and upgrades to the Kernel by Defense Industry. As software is added to the OS, the agency will test extensively in multitude of software suites and various networking capabilities in order to validate compliance, feasibility, and information assurance. The Agency is charged with continued development of the Kernel to insure the Defense Industry software meets DoD requirements (Example: Army FCS) and to continuously exploit advances in the marketplace.

Business Model – The goal is to provide The Defense Industry the capability to continue profitability but reduce cost overall to the Department of Defense. The Defense Industry bids on modules giving functionality to a system ranging from servers to small devices. The point is not to consolidate systems into a single provider but to increase competition and quality with the exception of the Kernel, the anchor point. The Kernel with a form of Public License would give the Defense Industry the ability to contribute and shape the development and changes of the Kernel.
The Defense Industry participants can be system integrators and build the systems from a multitude of module providers fully integrated at DoD level. Intuition (not factual or computed) would lean towards reduced development cost (hopefully more profit) for the Industry, not only working with a standard but the capability to modify the standard to meet bided products. The greatest loser in this model resides at the Operating System providers and the second layer licensing contracts currently in place. Another positive approach that differs from the LINUX community itself is the acceptance and promotion of propriety code in the modules (i.e graphic card drivers). Therefore, this model could increase competition, reduce development costs, and ensure a strong and vibrant market instead of consolidating on single vendors.

The OS – Provides a Kernel that contains security components that facilitate multiple security classifications and users. The Kernel maintains all the current requirements expected by users for LINUX but adds the tools to maintain an internal database, mapping, and communications. Multiple levels of Kernels can be developed ranging from Servers to mobile devices similar to the Google Android platform (proof it can be done). The Defense Industry then meets contracted requirements by providing modules that coordinate amongst themselves by the common internal communications in the Kernel. An example of modules is a Self Propelled Howitzer system consisting of the Kernel, Weather Module, Munitions module, Enemy Intel module, Ballistic Module, and quite a few more. Therefore, each module can be developed with the knowledge they can communicate with each other through the common interface in the Kernel and through the Defense Industry collaboration system.


Conclusion
The biggest areas that challenge the feasibility of the concept lay within Business interference (Lobbyist), Legislation, Legalities of GPL or the creation of a new Public License, and Legacy Systems.

As further conceptualization is captured I will add the following sections including Technical Environment, Open Source, Security, Information Assurance, Legal Considerations, Collaboration, Business Model and Contracting, Testing, Legislation, and the biggest topic of Business Interference (Lobbyist)

Bradley A. Riley, MAJ, student, Command and General Staff College, Ft. Gordon Satellite Campus

“The views expressed in this blog/posting are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”