"Whadda ya know?" Topic
9 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 Game Design Message Board
Action Log
23 May 2019 1:48 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article Editor Julia reports once again on our Christmas fundraising project.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
 etotheipi  | 11 Jun 2017 5:06 a.m. PST |
Not much! OK. But beyond that, in this thread, GreenLeader gets at the ambiguity in the OP. The issue is not "how do you know what you don't know", but "what do you need to know to know you know something". And specifically, what counts as "knowing" a historical battle? The war it belongs to (vaguely time, place, and participants)?
The outcome (who won)?
The inputs (where it fits within the military and political context)?
The impact (so what)?
The turning point(s)?
Critical decisions by commanders (whether formal commanders, or just the people who effectively made a difference)?
The winning commander's breakfast menu? Other stuff? |
| Hafen von Schlockenberg | 11 Jun 2017 6:11 a.m. PST |
And I was afraid this was going to be another epistemology thread. Whew. |
| zoneofcontrol | 11 Jun 2017 8:10 a.m. PST |
If a husband speaks and there is nobody around to hear hem, is he still wrong? A variation on this: link |
| Ottoathome | 11 Jun 2017 3:06 p.m. PST |
|
| advocate | 11 Jun 2017 11:21 p.m. PST |
I know there are some things I don't know, but I don't know what they are. |
| etotheipi | 14 Jun 2017 9:53 a.m. PST |
And I was afraid this was going to be another epistemology thread. It is. so it has come to this? Every discussion about what is "rules for the sake of rules", "an anathema that they don't account for", why "simulation" is a dirty word, or why "fast play rules" are for children instead of wargamers never go anywhere because they start skipping the first consideration … what do you think is important? |
| Great War Ace | 14 Jun 2017 11:09 a.m. PST |
I know when I don't like something. Which is why I write my own rules…………. |
| Walking Sailor | 15 Jun 2017 4:04 p.m. PST |
"If a husband speaks and there is nobody around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
Wife's answer: Did his lips move? |
| UshCha | 17 Jun 2017 3:10 a.m. PST |
Don't care about real battles. Re-fights are not of interest to me in a wargame. They are of interest as accounts of what and why things went right or wrong.
Individual accounts of those in a battle give at least some evidence of how and what is percieved to happen in a battle.
Text books/manuals provide basic datya and training standards and actual battle dammage planing. In a game you generate you own critical turning points, these may not be evident at the time and may only be visible with 20/20 hindsight, as with real battles. |
|
worries about not losing his rules stuff.
