After spending some time thinking about a large board game input device - which simply tracks the position of each piece by comparing the current board state to a previously known state - we've decided that a multi-plexed approach will probably be the easiest to implement.
The problem with a multi-plexed approach is that whatever size grid is used determines the number of pins needed (so a 10 x 10 grid needs 10+10=20 i/o pins).
Rather than try the idea out with something simple, then discover it doesn't expand well for bigger/more complex games, we've decided to have a go at quite a complex game, and - if it works - scale it back for simpler board games. For now, we're concentrating on tracking the positions of "dumb" game pieces on the board throughout a game.
One of our favourite geek-games of the 80s was Blood Bowl (which thanks to a console remake being released in 2011 is seeing a bit of revival in recent months). Now, the original Blood Bowl board was a massive 15 x 26 = 390 squares in size.
Obviously, using a PIC with only about 30 spare pins is never going to cut it. So we're back to either using analogue inputs or increasing the i/o pins using shift registers. After much discussion, however, one idea really started to appeal: use two PIC microcontrollers!
This is not only cheaper than implementing a whole array of shift registers, but also gives us a bit more oomph to play with, as we could split game play up over a master and a slave controller.
We're planning on using the master to activate an entire "row" of inputs (the output Port1 in this previous port) but then to start listening on a serial RX pin for a response from the slave. The slave micro simply looks at the input state of all the pins (uC Port2 input in this previous post) and sends this back to the master via serial TX.
Because the master knows which row it activated, it can decode the value received over serial and work out which combination of buttons/inputs were activated. Now, by using 2 x 18F4550 chips, we've up to 30 pins available on each chip and a grid of 30 x 30 inputs (900 squares) is suddenly achievable.
For our Blood Bowl game, we could easily implement a 15 x 26 grid of squares and still have about 15 i/o pins freed up on our master controller (this controlling 15 rows, with the 26 inputs on each column being read by the slave controller). With this in mind, and after much more discussion (and a few more cups of tea and a whole packet of hob-nobs) we reckon we could come up with a generic board game controller which would have:
a) support for up to 600 squares (e.g. 20x30 but not necessarily in a square formation)
b) an LCD display for each player/side which can display current game status
c) built-in dice roll and other random-number generators
d) ability to calculate results/outcomes which would otherwise require dice rolls and table look-ups in the rule book
Although we've not actually built anything yet, this is quite an exciting development.
We remember Blood Bowl as being a great game, but bogged down with dice rolling, looking up results in tables, applying modifiers based on the playing piece type and so on. The Third Edition of Blood Bowl tried to do away with a lot of this by using a simpler dice system, but eventually the same thing happened: the immediate action could be resolved quickly (did a particular action succeed or fail) but when this affected another players ability, yet more dice rolls and table look-ups were necessary.
If we could remove all this dice rolling and referring back to the rule book and introduce a simple interface - so a player could pick up a piece to identify which is being moved, then press a button to say which action they were performing - the microcontroller could do all the random number generating and issue resolving; simply displaying a message on an LCD screen to the user, to inform them of the outcome and what to do next.
Here's how our Blood Bowl game could look with the clever electronics in place: