mdiehl
Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
|
quote:
And that's the whole point, Mike. This isn't a Consim. It's a game. And it doesn't follow Consim rules. It can't.
It professes to be a Consim. That it is a poor one is a point of frequent observation. It doesn't even require ME to make that observation, plenty of others have made it.
I'm addressing the claim made in this thread that one should not design a Consim (or if you like, a GAME) to produce a typical result based on a single or otherwise limited number of historical examples. I think the claim is incorrect. But you need to know enough about the example so that your consim (or if you like, your GAME) accurately models whatever you claim it models.
You can object that to make a better model you'd want to know penetration values, angle of incidence, and all that baloney. I don't think you need that kind of detail, but if you're going to have something like that, you better do a good job researching and modeling it, otherwise you're going to get GiGo results.
quote:
Just go to Europe 1939. France had every single solitary advantage in Consim inputs, but got whacked in a few weeks. Why? Because Germany departed from the Consim model and went out of the box.
Gibberish. Utter gibberish. If "out of the boxness" is a quality you want to model in your game, it's either something that you leave to the players, or else you create some bullshit "out of the boxness" index. But to use such vague, imprecise, and obfuscatory language when one could be a lot more perceptive simply discussing German armor doctrine and French armor doctrine strikes me as a non-productive comment.
quote:
But assume the attackers will strike according to their expectations of the defender's reactions, and assume the defenders have intelligence of the attacker's dispositions, and assume the defender commander has big brass ones, and is willing to risk, Oh, yeah, right; how you gonna model that?
If I had any idea what specific example you have in mind, I could answer.
quote:
Ya want to play a game, then play the stinking game.
That's horse hockey. It's a straw man argument that indicates both an ignorance of why people do historical research, and why people make consims. A consim is not intended to exactly replicate every circumstance of a historical event. A consim is designed to deliver plausible and believable results under reasonably well modeled circumstances and yet to allow the opponents to select different strategic objectives, design operations differently, etc. But if two players wind up creating by their choices a setup similar to Midway, if you understand Midway at all, then you'd expect Midway-like results most of the time.
To claim that no one could predict Midway's outcome, which sounds like what you're claiming, is utter rubbish. Not only could ANYONE with knowledge have predicted the outcome, prior to the actual battle, both the USN and IJN DID predict something like that which actually happened.
quote:
Ya want historical, watch 'Victory at Sea'.
I could as easily note that if you want the feeling of being a victorious Japanese overlord, you should collect Japanese propaganda posters rather than play a consim.
_____________________________
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
|
Printable Version
The art of "averaging out" - 
RE: The art of "averaging out" - 
Then when I read it, I was sooooooo disappointed.
All well, nothing to add to JWE's succinct comments. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread