"Perturbation Theory " Topic
5 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Utter Drivel Message Board Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleNeed some low-pressure clamps?
Featured Profile ArticleWargame groundcloths as seen at Bayou Wars.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 19 Oct 2015 11:03 p.m. PST |
"I have often mentioned that what we have in a set of wargame rules is a set of models. These cover such things as movement, ranged combat, close combat and morale. Each of these models can be well founded, based on empirical data and so on. I am sure I have commented on what exactly that might mean in the past, and how, in fact, fudge factors have to be introduced because, for example, men under fire take longer to spread out into a line, or do not, themselves, fire as accurately (or even, at all) as those who are not, or who are in parade ground situations. Perhaps the interesting thing is how the models interact, however. The situation being modelled is not that of a specific model but of a set thereof. A model of movement, for example, can be modified by a model of firing. If the soldiers moving come under fire, then we expect that, in some sense, that will affect how the movement is carried out, potentially at least.
In practice, of course, we have modifiers and reaction tests. If a unit is moving and come under fire, we might apply a reaction test to it. We sum up the various external and internal factors such as surprise, cohesion, and training, cover and so on, roll dice and reach some sort of conclusion. The firing model has interacted with the movement one. As another example, many rule sets state that some troops can move half a full move and fire. Again, one model has changed another. Similarly, we might assess the damage from combat as being more than one man per figure (I think that was a Tercio thing) and make a forced morale check on that basis. In that case the combat model and the morale model have interacted and modified each other. It can work the other way around, as well. A morale failure can mean that a unit recoils and hence, if reengaged by their opponents, then fights at a disadvantage…" Full text here link Amicalement Armand |
ochoin | 19 Oct 2015 11:17 p.m. PST |
|
etotheipi | 21 Oct 2015 7:21 a.m. PST |
It's an interesting proposal, but using perturbation theory on a game system is a bit like cracking an egg with a 16 pound maul. You can do it, but it may not be the best tool for the job. As the article says, this is an approach for when the equations do not have closed-form solutions or there are significant practical limits to evaluating the solutions (and even then, there are finite-element approaches which are simpler and more closely bound to the actual solution). The types of systems we are using for the tabletop can usually be contained in a handful of spreadsheets. I agree that a game designer should understand the interactions in the different models provided. With respect to the low-probability case discussed in the article, it should be readily apparent to the players that this was a low-probability occurrence (for example, one player rolled three ones in a row and the other rolled three sixes) within the rules. When a player is blaming their "damn dice", they are not blaming the rules (or their strategy … but that's another discussion!). |
Supercilius Maximus | 24 Oct 2015 1:45 p.m. PST |
I thought perturbation was something to do with cats playing with themselves. |
|