"Friction! Some people just don’t get it" Topic

Opps! English allows words that have other meanings now! Sorry!

Ps we do consider some element of variable movement. Crossing ditches with vehicles, moving infantry in a faster than comfortable rate and the like, does result in variations. The aim is mainly to cause the disorder, if everybody is trying to achieve best speed in difficult situations some could get further than others, do you move at the speed of the slowest or accept the disorder players choice? Not sure really this is Friction it's not unexpected. If you are trying to find a way through a Forrest you may get lucky or you may have to go round the odd big tree. Once somebody has done it however everybody else can follow with out a significant risk ( no I do not want to get into the FM manuals about how many vehicles can cross a watercourse etc before it becomes impassible as we only ever come close to the limit occasionally). Using the crossing as a supply route is out of normal battle rules.

IF we are talking about Friction, randomness etc., it still comes down to when and how often such things occurred.

One cannot apply mathematical formulae to Friction in order to pin point when it should occur, it would be great if we could!

Trailape:

Well,several responses:

First, you can't avoid applying a 'mathematical formulae' if you are designing a wargame with ANY randomizing mechanic, be it with dice or cards.

Second, that is how randomizing in a simulation is approached: statistics--where and how often. Even chaos has patterns, such as Fractals, which were only discovered with statistics. Random events can happen everywhere…but in reality, they don't at the same rate everywhere. Insurance companies live and die on that reality.

Third, we can name off lots instances of random events, of friction, which folks have here. Lots of significant types of friction and random events… but little about where or how often which as I said, you will HAVE TO DO if you create a mechanic for introducing friction.

Do machine guns jam three miles from the front as often as the front lines, how many jam when first fired compared to long use? A methodical approach to answering the question of how to represent random events/fiction in realistic ways is needed. A random approach doesn't create a realistic randomness.

I have to concur with Trailape, it just happens!

No, it doesn't. No studies of randomness, odds of something occurring, or 'friction' ever came to that conclusion. One may not be able to predict the roll of a single D6, [other than I know it will be a result of 1 to 6…which is significant in itself] but one can predict the probable numbers of 100 die rolls. BOTH are elements of game design, simulation design and any system creating randomness.

I agree that as one nears the point of contact Friction is more likely to grow or to put it another way, a small element of friction prior to contact will develop into a large dollop once the lead starts to fly.

Then it doesn't 'just happen'. Fiction on the battlefield has parameters and rate based on the location of the enemy. That is a start. It also has to do with types of 'friction' and how often each occur as well as where.

Now its interesting in the mention of "radio Blackspots" as an issue. This would be a properties of the terrain for example a ditch or depression. Now they do occur but thay are likely to occur for everybody in that spot. Those of mobile phone obsession will understand. Now dicing for it could become ridiculous if one guy stood in the same place and did not get one. Absolutely unrealistic. Similarly dicing for a river being fordable, once its checked it stays that it does not change when somebody turns up 10 min later. So is this Friction or just highlighting a need for better definition of the battlefield?

Personally I see no need for Friction with our rules the number and scope of the decisions is wide and causes even myself the co-author at the top levels possible, to generate Friction without rules, you move down a road forgetting the need to get other troops down the road at the same time. Now you have a traffic jamb and a hell of a mess to get out of. If you were the guy in a truck it would seem just a random event but actually it was a staff Bleeped text (mine).

UshCha:

While I agree with your assessment, I think most folks are looking at friction as all those things that occur are outside the commander/player's purview--the higher level experience of lower level events like the low level experience of the guy in the truck.

At Austerlitz, the Allied cavalry corps running through two infantry corps in the morning in an attempt to get to the corps' designated starting position was an unexpected
screw-up, but certainly was at least partially caused by poor planning and staff work.

McClellan's hesitations at Antietam was not Friction. That was all on McClellan.

Ah, but from Lincoln's standpoint, that was friction!

A great deal of the friction, as seen from any level, is the unpredictability of the people at lower levels. Or, as someone said, "Hell is other people." Note someone's comment, early in this thread, about the extra friction involved in multi-player games. Real war is definitely a multi-player game!

Regarding game turns randomly ending. I see it as a timing issue. Bad timing for the units that did not get activated or fully carry out their turn. A "Tactical Pause", from my reading, is a mostly voluntary action taken by a leader to stop, evaluate and improvise if needed. It's a chance to increase local intel and situational awareness. I see games where a turn ends somewhat randomly as throwing a wrench into the timing of activities which can happen.

If you want it to truly reflect a "Tactical Pause", let unit commanders perform some type of command action, recon or order change when it happens. But then being pinned down under enemy fire could also be described as a "Tactical Pause" while the LT and his Squad Leaders figure out what to do.

Wolfhag

Even today most systems do not handle command control well. Its what generals/captain/etc do – not read dense charts.

Command Control attempts to overcome friction – which is everything from own side screw ups to unexpected enemy action or just dumb luck. At higher levels some friction issues can cancel out – but at lower levels they should dominate making these levels a bit to luck oriented for my taste.

Generally Command Control is an issue of too much to do and to little time. Commanders have the choice of giving a single order to large formations or taking the time to micro manage smaller units at the risk of some units going ignored. Both the order chit system pioneered by John Hill and the Command Point or PIP system created by Phil Barker handle Command Control very well with a minimum of player hassle.

Unfortunately design has devolved into random card draw/dice activations or complex Empire style layered commands. Dissatisfaction with these has lead to them being ignored devolving further to you go I go or single unit activation systems.

Still the answers are out there its more of an application than an idea problem.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games

U,

This would be a properties of the terrain for example a ditch or depression. Now they do occur but they are likely to occur for everybody in that spot. Those of mobile phone obsession will understand. Now dicing for it could become ridiculous if one guy stood in the same place and did not get one. Absolutely unrealistic.

If only that were the case….it should be….but I've been in too many a situations where two or more people with the same radio are in the same location…two radios don't work while one does – so I used the one radio with reception! There will be a technical reason but no idea what…..

But to relate it back to wargames – I'm not suggesting that I would like to see a die roll at such a level for every conceivable piece of possible friction, but all of that sort of random "friction" type event is encompassed into command rolls or movement rolls of various sorts, etc.

So a poor command roll can reflect numerous aspects of friction, successfully overcome or not based on the command roll plus/minus your command ability modifier.

The same with movement, on a personal level I prefer random movement, because that takes into account of those numerous "friction" elements we've discussed. You either crack on across the field or a random element of friction has intervened making it slower progress.

W – I like the Tactical Pause suggestion, its a good one, I think, maybe as simple as if you've taken a Tactical Pause you get a reroll should a up occur!

DB

McClellan's hesitations at Antietam was not Friction. That was all on McClellan.

Ah, but from Lincoln's standpoint, that was friction!

Don:
Yep, so one of the questions about Friction is "Whose view point are we talking about?" From McClellan's view it was McClellan. From Lincoln's it was "McClellan has got the 'slows.'"

A great deal of the friction, as seen from any level, is the unpredictability of the people at lower levels. Or, as someone said, "Hell is other people." Note someone's comment, early in this thread, about the extra friction involved in multi-player games. Real war is definitely a multi-player game!

Yes. That is what Clausewitz was talking about--friction is in large part that people are the organization--the army:

" But let us reflect that no part of it is in one piece, that it is composed entirely of individuals, each of which keeps up its own friction in all directions. Theoretically all sounds very well; the commander of a battalion is responsible for the execution of the order given; and as the battalion by its discipline is glued together into one piece, and the chief must be a man of acknowledged zeal, the beam turns on an iron pin with little friction. But it is not so in reality, and all that is exaggerated and false in such a conception manifests itself at once in war. The battalion always remains composed of a number of men, of whom, if chance so wills, the most insignificant is able to occasion delay, and even irregularity. The danger which war brings with it, the bodily exertions which it requires, augment this evil so much, that they may be regarded as the greatest causes of it."

Something that Clausewitz could not know is that the behavior of groups is far more predictable [as is their random behaviors] than that of individuals. We know this from comparative studies, statistical studies and simulations.

That could mean that attempting to create friction in skirmish rules, individual behaviors will be far more random/unpredictable than units/groups at larger scales.

Generally Command Control is an issue of too much to do and to little time.

That simply isn't the way it necessarily works now or in the past. It depends on the level of command and what is happening. In the middle of combat at the squad level it is probably far more likely than at the division level waiting for reports.

At the beginning of the battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon trotted around the Battlefield for more than three hours without giving one order. It is reported that he kicked around a Prussian drum for a good portion of the Battle of Jena. Suvurov was reportedly napping on the ground when Bagration found him, well into the battle of Novi. Suvurov finally leaped up and gave orders when he heard the couriers coming in to report to those around him, describe what he was waiting to hear about how the battle was developing.

I think the "too little time/too much to do" scenario is far more realistic at the Chain of Command level with @10 second turns than a game at the brigade level with half hour turns.

In common parlance a "tactical pause" just means a pause to consider. It's to emphasise the wisdom of pausing and considering before you put your hand in the fire that "tactical" is added. As if it wasn't already obvious that you should be thinking.
I suppose compared to global warming and the possibility the gulf stream might come to an end the downward spiral of the English language is only mildly irksome. Still irritating though.

My point.
This is not what is meant by a pause in a battle.
The latter is where the two sides are doing things but nothing really appears to be happening.
An unexpected minute of stillness.
Hans is still rushing up with the mg42 ammo, Billy is on the other side of the field with his Bren trying to work out where Hans moved to… They didn't fall asleep.
It just appears nothing much is happening.

These are quite common in the modern empty battlefield where both sides are often trying really hard not to be seen.
Usually not friction as such.
More because neither has a clear enough target to give away their position by firing… or the like.

Double blind simulates this a lot better than random turn ends / pips / activation rolls.

A,

Re:

Double blind simulates this a lot better than random turn ends / pips / activation rolls.

Maybe it does but the majority of miniature wargamers do not have the luxury of two identical tables/maps and troops, etc.

That's way we are "struggling" to developed system that at least brings a distinct element of fog of war and friction into wargames where both sides are the usual 300 foot general.

Hopefully it's just a matter of time until we perhaps stumble across a system that does just that or perhaps not!

DB

I think the "too little time/too much to do" scenario is far more realistic at the Chain of Command level with @10 second turns than a game at the brigade level with half hour turns.

Very true. The problem at higher levels is restricting players from reacting to what is happening too quickly. The players have unrealistically complete knowledge of what is happening to their own units and of what the enemy is doing and with no restrictions can call up reserves to bolster a collapsing wing or react to outflanking moves too quickly. The question is how to simulate that without the tedious written orders and tracking couriers moving about the battlefield. And of course there are still the s like Nolan pointing to the wrong guns at Balaclava.

Andy,
I took my definition from the military term:
link
It is also defined as "Go Firm" by taking a short security halt.

It seems to me more of a patrolling/movement to contact tactic. However, in the middle of combat, a leader could order a ceasefire (as if that would ever happen in a game) to perform the same tasks as a "Tactical Pause".

Taking a Tactical Pause does create a "lull" in your action. If both sides decide to take a "Tactical Pause" and hunker down a lull in the battle would most likely be created as you mentioned.

It would be an interesting rule or tactic to use in a game. You decide to take a "Tactical Pause" and stop all moving and shooting but gain some additional intel, command points, cards or whatever your game mechanics use to get some type of an advantage. However, you'd be giving up the initiative to the enemy who could continue to maneuver and fire – OR – he also takes a Tactical Pause himself creating a lull in the action. Historically, a battlefield temporary lull was not uncommon but extremely rare in a war game.

Interesting.

Wolfhag

I have to concur with Trailape, it just happens!

McLaddie Reply:

No, it doesn't. No studies of randomness, odds of something occurring, or 'friction' ever came to that conclusion. One may not be able to predict the roll of a single D6, [other than I know it will be a result of 1 to 6…which is significant in itself] but one can predict the probable numbers of 100 die rolls. BOTH are elements of game design, simulation design and any system creating randomness.

Lol.
Ok,.. so like I said right at the start: "some people just don't get it".
I'm not a mathematician or hold a degree in statistics,..
But I can assure you after 32 years of military service with several of them on actual Operations that ‘s#%T does in fact ‘Just Happen'.
If you could break Combat or Ops down to pure mathematics then you wouldn't need soldiers and their leaders.
Just give a 9mm Pistol to a few mathematicians and save Billions of $ and thousands of lives!
I'm not going to even go into why such a comment is just simply WRONG, as my comments, views, proclivities are already stated here and elsewhere.
But I will ask is you've ever been in combat or even been on a training exercise or at least spoken with a veteran or current serving soldier (CSS).
And ‘NO' I'm not asserting ‘expert syndrome' here just trying to gauge your level of experience on the subject.
If not I challenge you to speak with ANY veteran or a CSS in ANY army ANYWHERE and tell me if you can find just 1 who would agree with such a conclusion that ‘crap does not ‘Just Happen'.

Do machine guns jam three miles from the front as often as the front lines, how many jam when first fired compared to long use? A methodical approach to answering the question of how to represent random events/fiction in realistic ways is needed. A random approach doesn't create a realistic randomness.

You've never operated a MG on a 8 month operation have you?
And this is an example of what we're dealing with.
IT DEPENDS!
Randomness is EXACTLY THAT! RANDOM!!!!!!
As for your ‘jamming / stoppage analogy) it depends on how well aquinted the user is to the weapon.
It depends on ammunition quality and care (care by the user, the manufacturer, and the numerous hands within the logistic system).
It can depend on weather conditions and environmental conditions.
It can depend on rates of fire that can be influenced by enemy action.
It can depend on age of the ammunition or the weapon.
The list goes on and on and on….
Training can MITIGATE but not ELIMINATE friction or ‘F#%£ UPS' but it can't predict when they will happen 100%.
If I give Gunner Blogs the Mag58 I can predict he'll take longer to clear any stopage compared to Gnr Smith becuse I know Smith is a really switched on digger and just completed the MG Theory course at Snall Arms Training Cell. I also know Blogs is a newbie and has struggled to ‘fit in'.
So Again:
One cannot apply mathematical formulae to Friction in order to PIN POINT when it should occur, it would be great if we could.
Emphasis on PIN POINT!!!!
When you DO come up with such a formula my advice is to patent it!
You'll make Bill Gates look like a pauper!
You can predict Friction will occur
You might even be able to predict how much friction will occur
You CAN'T consistently Predict WHEN it will occur.

Great post trailape.

I guess in the end it depends on the "feel" the designer wants to bring out in the game and nothing will please everyone's experience, prejudices and expectations. I do know that SNAFU's are one of the more entertaining parts of my game as I think players like surprises, real or imagined.

You can find details on stoppages and malfunctions percentages for the M1 Garand if you wanted to model that. However, most small arms stoppages are not serious enough to really affect the outcome of a firefight.

I own an M1 and shoot it frequently. I've had more stoppages than I liked but nothing that took more than a few seconds to clear. In very rare cases it can slam fire, extractor break or the operating rod may bend and get dislodged from the bolt.

I did read about a Marine that fired his M1 Garand so much at the Chosin Reservoir that the stock caught fire even though the temp was -20 degrees.

My approach is the more you do stuff the more likely something bad can happen to you or your opponent. It happens 5%-10% of the time for me so that's not exactly what I'd call random. You could adjust the % based on the crew, environment, etc.

There is a way to ensure a weapon will never jam – just don't fire it.

Wolfhag

TrailApe

Great post. As an ex-soldier too, I would however query just one statement you made:

"You CAN'T consistently Predict WHEN it will occur"

I respectfully disagree.

I could predict with 100% certainty that it will happen at exactly the time you don't want it to happen…

Ok,.. so like I said right at the start: "some people just don't get it".
I'm not a mathematician or hold a degree in statistics,..
But I can assure you after 32 years of military service with several of them on actual Operations that ‘s#%T does in fact ‘Just Happen'.

Trailape:

The impressions from that comment are 1. there is no rhyme or reason… they just happen. no rate or cause and effect relationships can be discovered. 2. Those things that 'just happen' don't show patterns over time, like car accidents, they 'just happen' and there is no way to understand or mitigate or predict them.

I have been asking 'when and how often?'

"You CAN'T consistently Predict WHEN it will occur"

I never used the word consistent or suggested it.

If you could break Combat or Ops down to pure mathematics then you wouldn't need soldiers and their leaders.

It's not breaking down combat or Ops to pure mathematics…it is building up lots of combat or Ops experiences like yours to identify general cause and effect, probabilities of things happening… Probability is mathematics.

I am sure through your career that with experience, you learned to anticipate things [their probability of occurring] that seemed to previously 'just happen' and mitigate the number of those 'happenings.'

I am not suggesting that everything can be reduced to mathematics, even it usually is in wargame design. I am saying that if all unexpected things 'just happened' without any predictability, training would be largely pointless, and if leaders couldn't anticipate the unknown--those random things 'just happening', as Clausewitz believes, those leaders wouldn't find success.

Do things just happen? sure, but as Wolfhag notes"

My approach is the more you do stuff the more likely something bad can happen to you or your opponent. It happens 5%-10% of the time for me so that's not exactly what I'd call random. You could adjust the % based on the crew, environment, etc.

In statistical studies, that notion of 'likelihood' of something 'just happening', where and why can be refined to a large extent by looking at a lot of personal experiences… perfect? hardly. Able to anticipate every single random event which 'just happens', of course not.

However, if you are going to talk about friction, the experience of it over time at various scales, whether individually or in a brigade or division, and then talk about mimicking it in a wargame system, you can't avoid 'calculating' the probability of something 'just happening', where and how.

That is what the Military attempts to do all the time…basing Ops on those calculations…and has from the beginning of warfare.

It was Napoleon who wrote,

"Military science consists in calculating all the chances accurately in the first place, and then in giving accident exactly, almost mathematically, its place in one's calculations. It is upon this point that one must not deceive oneself…now this apportioning of accident and science cannot get into any head except that of a genius…Nothing is attained in war except by calculations."

No one can anticipate all the random events on the battlefield…but that doesn't mean the probability of where, when, how and why can't be discovered. Random events, as with friction, doesn't occur over the entire battlefield an inch deep. It bunches up, occurring some places far more than others.

If you can't come to some conclusions on that, how can you begin to imagine you can represent them in a wargame?

TrailApe

Great post. As an ex-soldier too, I would however query just one statement you made:

"You CAN'T consistently Predict WHEN it will occur"

I respectfully disagree.

I could predict with 100% certainty that it will happen at exactly the time you don't want it to happen…

😆😝
I stand corrected Sir!
👍

The impressions from that comment are 1. there is no rhyme or reason… they just happen. no rate or cause and effect relationships can be discovered. 2. Those things that 'just happen' don't show patterns over time, like car accidents, they 'just happen' and there is no way to understand or mitigate or predict them.

That's right friction by it's very nature is unpredictable.

How could somebody at the Battle of Antietam predict that when moving forward into line near a farm a regiment would be attacked by enraged bees throwing it into disorder and delaying it's movement or that a group of frightened cattle would burst out of a nearby wood towards another regiment delaying them as they tried to prevent being overrun by the cattle? Nobody knew the cattle were in the wood otherwise they would have been turned into steaks before the battle.

That's right friction by it's very nature is unpredictable.

How could somebody at the Battle of Antietam predict that when moving forward into line near a farm a regiment would be attacked by enraged bees throwing it into disorder and delaying it's movement or that a group of frightened cattle would burst out of a nearby wood towards another regiment delaying them as they tried to prevent being overrun by the cattle? Nobody knew the cattle were in the wood otherwise they would have been turned into steaks before the battle.

No, nobody could predict that particular event, but IF enough battles were studied, they could have predicted how often such friction [those unanticipated terrain 'happenings'] would occur in a battle. Certainly not perfect knowledge, but also not complete unpredictability of when and how such things would happen.

Understanding Friction isn't a question of complete predictability or total unpredictability.

How often did the flora and fauna create problems for troops in battle? Every battle or just the two you mentioned? Hundreds of times in a day or just one or two?

Or is the argument that no one could ever know and that hundreds of such events could happen as readily as one or two?

Those are kind of important issues in creating such friction in a game design. Such answers can be discovered. Simulations have been at the forefront of understanding randomness, 'friction' and the nature of chaos--in simply trying to replicate them.

The impressions from that comment are 1. there is no rhyme or reason… they just happen. no rate or cause and effect relationships can be discovered. 2. Those things that 'just happen' don't show patterns over time, like car accidents, they 'just happen' and there is no way to understand or mitigate or predict them.

So you're comparing 'car accidents' to friction in combat?
Okay,…
And 'Yes' sometimes there is no rhyme or reason' in so far as at that moment in time; for Example:
I can see no rhyme or reason WHY farmer Bloggs decided to dump all this wire fencing material in this tall grass I'm trying to move through on my guts. All I know is it's here!!
I can see no rhyme or reason why 3 section has stopped moving forward and is shooting at a ditch with no return fire coming from it!

I never used the word consistent or suggested it.

No, you just suggested, no ASSERTED that it just 'doesn't happen'.

I am not suggesting that everything can be reduced to mathematics, even it usually is in wargame design. I am saying that if all unexpected things 'just happened' without any predictability, training would be largely pointless, and if leaders couldn't anticipate the unknown--those random things 'just happening', as Clausewitz believes, those leaders wouldn't find success.

at what point EVER in ANY of my posts say or suggest ALL unexpected things couldn't be prepared for?
Combat is a perfect storm of the unexpected!
'Contact Drills' (Shot! Yell 'CONTACT Front, Right Left Rear', Run, Down, Roll, Crawl, Observe, Aim, Fire! ) is just ONE example of preparing for and mitigating the UNEXPECTED.

Do things just happen? sure, but as Wolfhag notes"

Whoa!!! Are you now saying it's conceivable that 'S#@T Happens'?

However, if you are going to talk about friction, the experience of it over time at various scales, whether individually or in a brigade or division, and then talk about mimicking it in a wargame system, you can't avoid 'calculating' the probability of something 'just happening', where and how.

You've lost me.
NO, you don't need to have a calculation of how much FRICTION will occur in a wargame.
You just need to have a system that throws up the occasional, random 'event' that causes your plan to be frustrated.
Exactly HOW would you calculate for every in-numeral occurrence? Would you have rules for 'Randomly discarded fencing materials.
Or maybe a rule covering 'Sudden Irrigation Ditch Paralysis Syndrome'?

That is what the Military attempts to do all the time…basing Ops on those calculations…and has from the beginning of warfare.

As an instructor and assessor of Individual Military Appreciation Processes (IMAP) I can assure you a platoon commander or Platoon Sergeant DOES NOT factor in 'Stuff that might just happen'
And it's not part of the Staff MAP process either.
these processes are based on KNOW fact or assumption of:
The Enemy Assets / Moral ect
EN Most LIKELY Courses of Action
En Most DANGEROUS Courses of Action
The Terrain
Friendly forces ect ect,…

The 'friction' will be dealt with by the leaders on the ground at the sharp end.
That's why they are there.

B McL,

Re:

Understanding Friction isn't a question of complete predictability or total unpredictability. How often did the flora and fauna create problems for troops in battle? Every battle or just the two you mentioned? Hundreds of times in a day or just one or two? Or is the argument that no one could ever know and that hundreds of such events could happen as readily as one or two?
Those are kind of important issues in creating such friction in a game design. Such answers can be discovered. Simulations have been at the forefront of understanding randomness, 'friction' and the nature of chaos--in simply trying to replicate them.

Yes, you are right – there is a possibility that such things could be discovered – eventually – and you're just the man to do it! Crack on! Please report back when it done.

However the requirement to understand the mathematical minutiae of how friction occurs on the battlefield is not really what's needed for a tabletop miniature wargame. It'll involve far fewer years of mathematical and statistical analysis research if we "design" one or more forms of command dice mechanisms (in whatever form that takes) into games that capture and/or reflect friction as a "generality" at the appropriate command levels, even if based more on "gut feeling", "inspiration" and one's own experiences in the field/command situations than any absolute mathematical certainty.

DB

172 posts!
I'm impressed….

I feel Mc Laddie is on the right track. I recall the Traffic Jam instance was some years ago proabaly over 100 battles ago, however I don't keep records of battles. That means a 1% chance of it happening when it matters. I have proably had traffic jams before and since but by "effective" staff work I will have mitigated the problem. It never was friction but it would appear to be so to a lower level.

Now is it sensible to put it in a game. It would come up every 100+ games. Now to get a timeing issue Iwould have to have a means of estimating the length of a game in our case anyrthing from about 10 to 20 turns. So I would be rolling a die with a percentage chance of 00,1 % to 0.05%. You have got to be kidding its real, but not useful at that level.

Increasing its likely hood to say once every 2 battles is utterly bonkers, totaly inrealistic. Its in the same level of bonkers as expecting one element to perform at Victoria Cross level evey battle.

No we do need uncertainty. Supprisingly I have seen comments to the ilk of "im not using blinds I've spent weeks painting X, I refuse not to put it on the table for the whole battle". Now that is a massive decrease in uncertainty far outweighing the "friction" effects.

@ UshCha
You're talking about ONE isolated incident.
One.
Count them…
☝️
What part of ‘Innumerable' is not understood?
It issue isn't ‘what' event caused friction / uncertainty / a Pineapple….
It's that SOMETHING screwed up or frustrated your plan.
That ‘something' isn't as important in game terms as is the fact that you're now required to crisis manage that ‘something'.
Maybe it's a delay in a section getting into a good base of fire position.
It could be smoke clearing faster than expected.
It could be a foul up in the FUP because the Adjutant has suddenly taken away your Pioneers due to a more pressing need somewhere else on the company's Line of Advance.
It could be the CSM has been killed bringing up extra Ammo to your position.
It could be the Battalion 2ic has placed you on the wrong Line of Departure.
It could be your Supporting Arm Coordinator is on the wrong hill or is being engaged directly or tripped a mine / IED / booby trap.
It could be……
In game terms it's ‘your reinforcements have not arrived'!
"That's stupid, and not fair and has screwed up my perfect plan! These rules suck"!
That's friction.
And it screws up your well laid plans.
What does a REAL commander do?
He deals with it.
He improvises and overcomes.
If the SURVIVAL of your command relies on someone arriving at a particular point at a particular time I'd suggest you plan sucks!
If the success of your MISSION relies on someone arriving at a particular point at a particular time then at least you can live to try again another day and that's not a bad outcome.
If your plan has enough robustness built in so Friction can be mitigated (in other words it's simple and works) then you're on a winner.
If it's STUPID (simple) but works it's not stupid (dumb).

The problem is that while problems do happen in the course of a war, the accounts I have read is that in any particular account it is a rare occurance not every battle or action by any means. Smoke clearing faster than expected is not really an unexpected there will be a variation which is inevitable. Even in our "frictionless" game dispersal of smole is not perfectly predicateble and yes somtimes it is the wrong bit t hat clears first. This is not Friction its just normal expectation. Do you really feel tah once every say ten battles is worth it? Certainly not for me, more often is unrealistic.

Friction is usual in any human endeavour.
You don't have to get involved in a military operation to see a project go south.

You might think nobody is trying to shoot you in the business world. Sure. Other teams and people try and make projects fail though. Other businesses compete.
The details of what they are doing differ, but the end effect on messing an endeavour up is there.

Businesses routinely analyse and try and reduce it's effects.
Risk registers being one example.
Yes.
Businesses really do try and list things that could go wrong.
They analyse likelihood of a bad thing happening and the probable consequences.
They then organise mitigations – measures to avoid that happening.

Likelihood of plan crashing into nuclear reactor – pretty flipping small.
Consequence of plane breaking reactor – very bad.
Mitigations: No fly zone, stronger than necessary nuclear containers, position reactor away from population.

For our purposes the detail of exactly what goes wrong largely do not really matter.
There are exceptions – like a roll for availability and duration of smoke.

In my opinion.
I think it very likely military operation friction has similarly probabilities to the rest of the world it lives in friction.
Which means it's normal form and a bell curve around a zero axis of f---d – upness.

I think it likely that bell curve flattens and widens in the face of enemy action.
With the centre moving to the right of zero.
In that the mean f---ed – upness is definitely going to be worse in the face of enemy action.

The problem is that while problems do happen in the course of a war, the accounts I have read is that in any particular account it is a rare occurance not every battle or action by any means.

Are you seriously suggesting Friction is a ‘rare' occurrence?
Seriously?
What ‘accounts' have you been reading?
Battle Picture Weekly?

Smoke clearing faster than expected is not really an unexpected there will be a variation which is inevitable.

Actually ‘No'.
Smoke rounds (chemical rounds) all have predicted loiter times. These are in firing tables that the FO and Artillery CPs maintain. These even take into account prevailing wind conditions. So smoke clearing faster than expected does cause friction and IT DOES HAPPEN.
I've seen this with my own eyes. And that's Artillery smoke. I've not even mentioned smoke generated by grenades or burning vehicles or buildings or terrain which can be wildly random in the smoke they generate .
Did I mention I was an Artilleryman?
I'm an Artilleryman.

Even in our "frictionless" game dispersal of smole is not perfectly predicateble and yes somtimes it is the wrong bit t hat clears first. This is not Friction its just normal expectation.

Wrong. See above comments. It can be RANDOM. It shouldn't be excessively random however.
Smoke SHOULD persist a certain time but sometimes it clears faster or lingers longer.
Sometimes.
This is why Artillery observers are trained to monitor screening and blinding missions and modify the rate of fire of Screening and Blinding Smoke Missions.
A FO might well be on a hill and there is very little breeze. He could be dropping Smk Rds into a valley where the wind is stronger.
Then there are issues with fog or mist (oh, another element of Friction btw). Was it forecast? If not, why is it there? Met troop said there would be no mist but hey there it is!
Did you know Divisions have their own Meteorological Troops?

Do you really feel tah once every say ten battles is worth it? Certainly not for me, more often is unrealistic.

You seem to be fixated on individual events rather than the concept of innumerable events.
‘Friction' isn't items 1 to 200
It's 1 to infinity!
Like I said:
Friction, some people just don't get it.

I think what McLaddie is trying to say is that you should be able to quantify the frequency that certain events occur and get a percentage chance of them happening in any given time period. So for example a weapon jamming should be fairly common, but your command vehicle being disabled by a meteor strike should be vanishingly rare.
Secondly there are things that happen on a frequent enough basis that their occurrence should be factored in to planning. Take tanks breaking down during a days op. There is a very small chance all would break down, and equally a small chance none would break down. Between those 2 there will be an average number of breakdowns on a given day. As an officer planning an op I would assume your plan takes into account the fact that some tanks will break down and you plan to have enough tanks that despite the breakdowns you can complete the mission. You don't just shrug your shoulders say sh*t happens and try to sort things out when you lose a few tanks to breakdowns. Of course none of this tells you WHEN your tanks will break down and that could be at a very inconvenient time, like while crossing a bridge, causing it to be blocked. That's the time you shrug your shoulders, say sh*t happens and try to sort it out then and there.

So you're comparing 'car accidents' to friction in combat?
Okay,…
And 'Yes' sometimes there is no rhyme or reason' in so far as at that moment in time;

Trailape:

I was comparing car accidents to friction only in their assumed 'unpredictability.'

And 'at that moment in time' and 'I can see no reason for the fencing material being there' are keys to the experience of friction. It's unexpected and random to the one who is experiencing it.

at what point EVER in ANY of my posts say or suggest ALL unexpected things couldn't be prepared for?
Combat is a perfect storm of the unexpected!
'Contact Drills' (Shot! Yell 'CONTACT Front, Right Left Rear', Run, Down, Roll, Crawl, Observe, Aim, Fire! ) is just ONE example of preparing for and mitigating the UNEXPECTED.

You never suggested it. I was simply pointing out that the military doesn't see combat as a 'perfect storm' because types of friction can be anticipated [predicted] and mitigated, so it isn't 'perfect'. That's all.

NO, you don't need to have a calculation of how much FRICTION will occur in a wargame.
You just need to have a system that throws up the occasional, random 'event' that causes your plan to be frustrated.

"occasional"? How often is that? You would need to know that to actually put it into a game system. You would need to know what that occasional rate of 'just happens' occurs in reality to recreate 'realistic' rates in a game.

What rate of unpredictable occurrences equals a realistic 'occasional"? Certainly when each event happened, it wouldn't be predictable. It is how many would be typical…ball park, a range like Wolfhag's 10%.

Exactly HOW would you calculate for every in-numeral occurrence? Would you have rules for 'Randomly discarded fencing materials.

Doesn't seem reasonable. You look at battles and combat actions and ask how often to such things happen, not fencing materials per say, but that kind or type of 'friction' occurring. You might group several kinds of terrain friction and ask 'how often?'

Whoa!!! Are you now saying it's conceivable that 'S#@T Happens'?

Yes, never said it didn't. I simply said that we want to know how often, what kinds and where.

The suggestion was that random events are so random, that S#@T just happens, it can't be understood at all, predicted at all, that no rates or where or even why can be known--at all. As you say:

"Friction' isn't items 1 to 200. It's 1 to infinity!

So, how do you establish 'occasionally'? And if you did, would that have any relationship to reality if it is 1 to infinity?

I'm disagreeing here. There isn't anything to suggest that Friction is 1 to infinity on average, or even at the extremes. There are parameters and limits, there is a bell curve to such things, as unpredictable as single events are, as a group of events, there is that bell curve around rates and locations, types etc.

Players shouldn't know when and where such friction occurs for the most part--or even why, but to recreate reality, they have to occur at a realistic 'occasionally' rate.

traleape, I get in may car and go somewhere, about 1 in 10 times being generous on your terms something goes wrong on the trip I am a bit late or get their a bit earlier but its probably 1 in 20 times I am outside my estimate and hence has some impact. In about 40 years of motoring my car has broken down only about 4 times and maybe 4 times I have had a flat Tyre. It happens and its unpredictable. Would I want to model this in a general driving simulation probably not it does not happen enough to warrant it.
You can't define 1 to infinity cock-ups in a simulation. Ergo its impossible to do. Generating random events that have no logical rate does not improve the simulation, where is the gain? Just adding a role that says "Summats gone wrong" is of no value and is unrealistic. If you want to have logical predicted weather phenomena, find out the rate and include it. If its not rare then the general will be aware of the inadequacies of the weather men.

Personally we don't even use weather normally as it is not considered useful in relation to the type of simulation we would want to play, adding unpredictability to a parameter that is not considered useful in our simulation to start with would be pointless. You can chose it if you want but it may not improve the simulation overall given the parameters its trying to model.

Its not just that "we don't get it" its not useful. The D-day simulations did not account for the Americans landing in the wrong place. Their training did get them ashore without too much problem Except at Omaha. Should they have changed the training schedule for getting lost, probably not.

I do get it but its not useful so no we don't cover it overmuch.

It seems like a large number of different possibilities are being lumped together into one overall catagory labelled friction, and some here are fighting about how to deal with them collectively. The better course of action is to look at each of the items individually in the context of the type of game you are trying to have.

While I tend towards TrailApe, I can see both sides of this. It is indeed a very difficult to thing to represent with any degree of 'accuracy' and there is clearly no way any set of rules can ever cover every conceivable possibility.

But the reality is that friction / cock-ups happened a lot. They were not, I would suggest, a rare occurrence, and therefore simply to dismiss them does not make sense.

Take the opening battles of the Boer War for example:

At Talana Hill, the British artillery held their fire on the retreating Boers as they saw them hoist white flags, and assumed a surrender had taken place.
Later, a force of British cavalry got lost in the fog while pursuing them, and got cut off and captured.

At Elandslaagte, the British attack was stalling, until a terrific thunderstorm occurred, and the assault re-continued under the 'cover' this provided.

At Nicholson's Nek, the mules carrying the British mountain guns and signalling equipment stampeded and ran off with the lot.

At Modder River, the Boers opened fire far too early, springing the trap prematurely. Four extra British guns arrived part-way through the battle (unexpectedly) and were flung straight into action… their first act was to bombard some British troops.

At Stormberg, a cock-up in comms meant that that several companies of the Northumberland Fusiliers got left behind in the dark and were forced to surrender.

At Colenso, the Boers opened fire prematurely again, Colonel Long mistakenly deployed his two batteries well within rifle range, the drift over the Tugela that the Irish Brigade were planning to use turned out to be in the 'wrong' place, and the key to the Boer position (Hlangwane Hill) was erroneously marked as being on the far side of the Tugela on British maps.

At Magersfontein, a cock-up in comms / timings meant that the Highland Brigade were still in quarter-column when the sun came up – meaning they were sitting ducks. Had they been able to shake out into extended order five minutes earlier, everything might have been different. Why had they advanced in quarter-column? To try and mitigate 'friction': ie. the chance of units being separated in the darkness.

Now, we can argue backwards-and-forwards whether or not all these things are 'friction' as such, but they all happened and none of them were 'part of the plan'. Furthermore, I would suggest that none (or few) of them would have happened in the average war game. Yet – 'cock-ups' / 'friction' / random events occurred in all the opening battles of that conflict. And these are just the ones I have pulled out of the top of my head.

the more you do stuff the more likely something bad can happen

Yes. The more that CAN go wrong, the more that WILL go wrong. (Murphy's Law) Thus the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

The reason for things like variable movement and op fire, variable turn length, et al, is that we are trying to simulate free-flowing events in a turn-based game.

Bill N wrote:

It seems like a large number of different possibilities are being lumped together into one overall catagory labelled friction, and some here are fighting about how to deal with them collectively. The better course of action is to look at each of the items individually in the context of the type of game you are trying to have.

While correct in theory, this is a terrible idea in practice because the number items that contribute to the "friction" a unit as a whole experiences are innumerable. At best you can lump them into broad categories, but even there you almost certainly have too many to handle well. The example of discarded wire in a field and bizarre orchard irrigation are both examples of "obstructed movement over 'open' ground," but in order to get any kind of reckoning of how often it occurs and what effect it might have, you'd have to take a sample of every military unit that has ever moved anywhere and have perfect knowledge of how much time it actually took versus what it was supposed to take – completely ignoring the fact that they may not have known how long it was "supposed" to take before they set off. Like I said, impractical.

And that's what has led us to the core of the current impasse, which is that while everyone generally agrees that "feces occurs" on the battlefield, it is extremely hard to quantify the extent to which it occurs. This is important, because ultimately we're talking about how best to model it, and we want our model to be a faithful (if necessarily abstract) representation of the effect.

But because the sources of friction are so innumerable and because its effects are so variable (from a mild stumble on a loose rock while crossing a field to encountering unexploded ordnance from a previous conflict), you're left just having to kind of eyeball it or go by how much friction "feels right." This is a tough sell, because people's perceptions of what "feels right" vary. One thing I think is interesting is that most of the veterans who've spoken up about CoC's friction mechanism(s) (as one example) both here and in person have indicated that it feels about right to them. That is valuable insight.

I am a huge fan of Chain of Command, as I think it presents the players with interesting and difficult tactical choices. Everything is a trade-off, and the player has to do more than mentally calculate %hit * %wound * %save and rely on the law of large numbers to achieve their objectives. And while it's somewhat true that having a human opponent introduces some amount of uncertainty, I think that uncertainty is a lot less than people claim. I've been playing wargames of various sorts for 30 years now and while I've had opponents make bold plays, I've rarely been completely gobsmacked by someone's actions. Unless you're playing someone who just has a bad grasp of tactics or probability, the choices people make tend to be the optimal ones.

But I think it says volumes about how well CoC incorporates uncertainty into its mechanics that I can play the game against myself and have an enjoyable experience full of thoroughly unpredictable twists. I know I've said it before, but CoC is the only game I've ever played where I have legitimately been able to ambush myself and honestly say, "Wow, I did not see that coming."

If combat is managed chaos, then some of the chaos (unpredictability) needs to be applied to the management (command) part of the equation. I find that I enjoy systems that introduce additional difficulties into command-and-control beyond simply deciding what action a unit will perform every turn.

It seems that what some are not getting is that it's not important what the cause of a particular example of friction is, the important thing is that friction happens in every battle. It's not important what incident caused each bit of friction, there are innumerable things that might case a particular thing to happen just that it happens. A unit didn't arrive when it should because it was attacked by bees or maybe the guide got lost (that one seems to happen a lot) or were ordered to hold in place by a confused officer or the path they were taking was rough ground that slowed them or they stopped because somebody yelled that they were being flanked or any number of other things that could have caused the delay. All of those things, and many more, happened to both sides during the battle of Antietam.

"occasional"? How often is that?

You've got to be kidding me! Occasional is a word that is used to indicate something that happens at an unknown rate you can't quantify how often something that happens occasionally occurs.

You would need to know that to actually put it into a game system. You would need to know what that occasional rate of 'just happens' occurs in reality to recreate 'realistic' rates in a game.
What rate of unpredictable occurrences equals a realistic 'occasional"? Certainly when each event happened, it wouldn't be predictable. It is how many would be typical…ball park, a range like Wolfhag's 10%.

No you don't need to know that to put it into a system. You just need to design a system where it happens occasionally. Chain of Command among others have mechanisms that do that.

traleape, I get in may car and go somewhere, about 1 in 10 times being generous on your terms something goes wrong on the trip I am a bit late or get their a bit earlier but its probably 1 in 20 times I am outside my estimate and hence has some impact. In about 40 years of motoring my car has broken down only about 4 times and maybe 4 times I have had a flat Tyre. It happens and its unpredictable. Would I want to model this in a general driving simulation probably not it does not happen enough to warrant it.

I'm pretty sure using driving your car from here to there as an indicator of how often friction might happen in a battle is a nonstarter

Its not just that "we don't get it" its not useful. The D-day simulations did not account for the Americans landing in the wrong place. Their training did get them ashore without too much problem Except at Omaha. Should they have changed the training schedule for getting lost, probably not.
I do get it but its not useful so no we don't cover it overmuch.

There's the rub. You don't seem the think that friction is very important while others here (myself included) feel that it is extremely important.

It seems like a large number of different possibilities are being lumped together into one overall catagory labelled friction, and some here are fighting about how to deal with them collectively. The better course of action is to look at each of the items individually in the context of the type of game you are trying to have.

How those possibilities are defined and lumped together and how large a range is up to the designer, the one establishing the scale and focus of the system.

Certainly the context and type of game is part of that designer determination. There aren't any wrong ways to do it as long as the design does what it was created to do visa via fun and historical representation.

I think a non-combat example of how statistical analysis can aid determining how to represent friction and random events might help. It is one process for modeling friction and random events:

Let's take something that has been studied and simulated a lot: Traffic accidents.

What causes one can be from a myriad of reasons, unique to each event. One is a drunk teenager, another a heart attack, a desire to kill themselves, simple carelessness, tweeting at the wrong time etc. etc. My son was in an accident when the wheel of an SUV came off on I-80 in Sacramento. Sometimes these behaviors/events cause accidents, sometimes they don't. A second one way or another and that tire would have missed his car. Random, right? For the one being the recipient of any of these obviously random events, it can really feel like it 'just happened' without rhyme or reason.

So, let's take a twenty mile stretch of I-80. Do accidents happen everywhere at the same rate at the same times in no particular locations?

A statistical study of a year's accidents finds that there is an average number per day, and a limit to how few and how many do occur… and how often those limits are reached. They also find that there are particular spots on the freeway that have a lot more accidents, and some few or none. How many deaths, injuries and minor scrapes occurred? Of course, the time of day makes a significant difference in the number of accidents. [Rush hour] Even the types of accidents can be 'grouped'. Very few wheels fall of compared to the number of those caused by carelessness. With a statistical analysis, WHY those collisions occur becomes less opaque.

This isn't made up. This is what statistical studies find on every freeway… often with striking similarities regardless of state or actual year. Is it perfect, with totally consistent prediction. Nope. Is it better than deciding that Friction just happens and is impossible to understand? Absolutely. If we are working on a continuum from completely opaque knowledge to perfect knowledge of random events and friction, statistical analysis certainly moves us along the line towards understanding, even if it will never be perfect.

Now, if I wanted to build a game around freeway driving, would a chance of being in a collision be realistic if I had a 1-6 chance regardless of time, place or accident rate for that freeway? No, except that there would be a chance of an accident.

Wargames are often designed to recreate history…create a portrait of historical combat if you will.

I can certainly decide to paint a portrait of Napoleon and say it is 'realistic' because my painting is flesh colored and has a nose, mouth and two eyes, but would anyone recognize my work as Napoleon if I never bothered to find out what he looked like beyond the obvious 'realistic' facial features?

The example of discarded wire in a field and bizarre orchard irrigation are both examples of "obstructed movement over 'open' ground," but in order to get any kind of reckoning of how often it occurs and what effect it might have, you'd have to take a sample of every military unit that has ever moved anywhere and have perfect knowledge of how much time it actually took versus what it was supposed to take – completely ignoring the fact that they may not have known how long it was "supposed" to take before they set off. Like I said, impractical.

Munin have you never heard of sampling? You don't have to know everything about every unit that ever moved over open ground to get a good statistical model. It is true the larger the sample the more accurate it is likely to be.

One thing I think is interesting is that most of the veterans who've spoken up about CoC's friction mechanism(s) (as one example) both here and in person have indicated that it feels about right to them. That is valuable insight.

Hmmm! So suddenly we go from it all being unknowable to the rate of friction occurring in CoC being judged as realistic based on the experience of combat veterans who have played the game. Sounds like a sample to me!

McLaddie, I get what you're aiming at, (and even agree to a certain extent), but the analogy to highway safety is so simplistic as to barely scratch the surface. Everyone on that stretch of highway is engaged in the same activity (driving their car) with the same goal (getting from point A to point B). Even the equipment they're using (the cars themselves) are functionally very similar (similar wheelbase, handling characteristics, controls, etc).

Contrast this with combat. In combat, two men in the same foxhole might be engaged in the same activity (shooting at the enemy) but might have very different goals (you want to kill Germans, I just want to stay alive). Further, the kinds of activities that men in (or even near) combat engage in are ridiculously varied, as are the conditions under which they attempt them.

Yes, I understand that you are attempting to quantify the frequency and seriousness of friction occurring, but fundamentally I think your approach is doomed to having too many unknowns and not enough data points. Hence my earlier comment about going by what "feels right" in terms of uncertainty in command/control/performance.

I try to build friction / uncertainty into my home-brew rules in various ways.

I firmly believe in variable movement, though (as I mentioned earlier) I make this less variable for disciplined troops in good order over good going etc.

I make Boer units take a morale check whenever an Imperial unit comes within rifle range – fail it (and they usually will) and they open fire. This might infuriate a certain type of player, but think just how infuriating it must have been for Generals Cronje and Botha et al.

British units are not subject to this rule.

I make it very difficult for a player to change his plan of attack once units are under effective enemy fire – they can basically go forwards / retire / go to ground, and this is not under the control of the player. If he wants units which can move around the battlefield, best he keeps a reserve.

I also build in lengthy delays for issuing new orders to committed troops.

Drifts are always diced for – can the river be forded or not?

I have toyed with 'random events' – if a 'double one' (for example) is rolled at any point, the umpire rolls on a random event chart. This chart is still a work in progress, but includes things such as artillery units opening fire on a friendly unit, lightening storms, a unit going-to-ground for no reason, Boers up and abandoning an out-on-a-limb position, mules stampeding and the like. Not all are bad – a piper might strike up a jaunty tune and inspire a stalled unit, for example.

The idea is that they don't happen often – once or twice a game? – and to have so many, that the chances of the same one happening twice within the space of a dozen or so battles is minuscule… and if there are no mules in play, then obviously they cannot stampede, so the game continues.

@McL

I was comparing car accidents to friction only in their assumed 'unpredictability.'

Well there you go.
I assumed that you were using the analogy of the car accident as proof that ‘S#%t ‘ just doesn't ‘Happen'!
Accident involving vehicles ARE far more predictable than combat.
And they are for the most part exactly that; accidents.
An accident can CAUSE friction but are not in of themselves FRICTION.
Driving is a pretty safe activity. Stick to the rules (don't Speed, don't drive under the influence, don't drive and text, wear seatbelts,..) and you're pretty darn safe.

You never suggested it. I was simply pointing out that the military doesn't see combat as a 'perfect storm' because types of friction can be anticipated [predicted] and mitigated, so it isn't 'perfect'. That's all.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!
Combat IS a perfect storm for the individuals involved in it.

It's terrifying, emotionally and physically demanding and draining,exciting, Frustrating, at some points absurd and profoundly uncertain and unpredictable.
I have very little to NO IDEA what the enemy might do.
Even my own people can do unprecedented and unpredictable things.
You keep say ‘the military does this or the military does that'
Are you currently serving or when did you serve?
I'm assuming you MUST have served at some point because you're stating things as facts.
Oh,.. Try watching ‘Black Hawk Down' as a rather good insight into friction btw. 🙂

"occasional"? How often is that?

Gee I don't know,… how about OCCASIONALLY!!!!!
And yes at this point I am yelling at my screen 📺!

The suggestion was that random events are so random, that S#@T just happens, it can't be understood at all,…

It can be understood. It's just YOU don't understand it.

… predicted at all, that no rates or where or even why can be known--at all.

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!! CORRECT!!!
Some friction CAN NOT BE PREDICTED AT ALL!
And YES you stated:
"S#%t does NOT just happen".
It does.

Accident don't just happen (and that's correct and that's why you attempted to justify you comment or give it Strength).
But FRICTION does often ‘Just Happen'. That is to say it's:
Random
And
Unpredictable
And
Varies in level of disruption from a minor inconvenience to catastrophic in its consequences.

@UshCha

traleape, I get in may car and go somewhere, about 1 in 10 times being generous on your terms something goes wrong on the trip I am a bit late… yadda yadda blah blah

Your analogy is unrelated, irrelevant and not comparable to combat.
At this point I switched off and went looking for a wall to beat my head against.

but the analogy to highway safety is so simplistic as to barely scratch the surface. Everyone on that stretch of highway is engaged in the same activity (driving their car)

Are they? Or drinking, or speeding to an appointment, or tweeting, or putting on makeup, or daydreaming, or scared to death and moving at 45 mph or listening to Rush Limbaugh etc etc. etc.

With the same goal (getting from point A to point B).

Or get in the fast lane, get a rush from changing lanes at 90 miles an hour… and of course groups of military men never have common goals.

Even the equipment they're using (the cars themselves) are functionally very similar (similar wheelbase, handling characteristics, controls, etc).

Really? Have you ever been on the freeway? SUVs, pickups, motorcycles, VW bugs, sixteen wheelers, Prius and the random Mazerati GranTurismo and Tesla.

However, yes, it is a simplistic example. I was simply providing an example of how statistical analysis works, the possible benefits for a game design, not demonstrating every technique and methodology with more complicated examples.

Whether it is random events or variable movement…the questions are how to model something of reality with a closed game system: "How often? How far could a unit be expected to move on average and how often did delays happen? Was terrain the most prevalent? Leader error, unexpected non-terrain events?

Jdginaz wrote:

It seems that what some are not getting is that it's not important what the cause of a particular example of friction is, the important thing is that friction happens in every battle. It's not important what incident caused each bit of friction, there are innumerable things that might case a particular thing to happen just that it happens.

Give that man a Cigar!!!!
Nailed it.🙌🏻👍🎖

I think a non-combat example of how statistical analysis can aid determining how to represent friction and random events might help. It is one process for modeling friction and random event

Nope,..
I think we've ascertained not if you're using traffic accidents as your start point

I never thought the concept of ‘Friction' would be so difficult to grasp.
I have taught this concept as part of leadership training, IMAP, SMAP, CMAP and JMAP as an instructor at our Defence Force Academy, our Warrant Officer and NCO academy and our School Of Artillery.
Never have I had such difficulties in explaining it. Lol 😂 😝.
I used to gather all the soldiers together when I was a RSM at the beginning of every training year and make the following statement:
"Somewhere in this formation are a couple of complete idiots!
Look to your left, (Pause for effect)
Look to your right,… (again, pause for effect).
If you've not identified our idiot it might be because it's you.
Now, remember this Troops! He might be an idiot but he's OUR idiot. So look after him because one day soon he might be the only soldier in a position to look after you"!
My point?
I now find myself at the point of utter frustration with this thread,.. it's a bit like mastubating with a cheese grater. Interesting but painful 😂.
So I shall leave this bag of dead cats and switch to lurking mode, and go have a look in a mirror and see if I can find ‘our idiot' 😎

This is hilarious! Just stick to the topic title and walk away from this (name your percentage) car wreck. There are some people who don't get friction. There are some who get it but don't want it. There are some who won't get it and you know where their heads are stuck trying to ignore it. Time to step backwards turn and flee. At least for your sanity.

I wonder if some of the posters conclude a 50% chance of a "hit" don't roll dice but only hit with every other shot. Want to analyse every bit of data. Well see you at the end of the universe watching the last faint glow of the entropy go out. Then you will have all the cause and effects values and can start modelling them.

So you need to commute from Fredericksburg to DC for your job. At highway speeds it should take 30 mins. If that's what you allow, I can safely bet the farm you will be late at least twice a week, but I can't bet which days it will be.

All it takes is one car having a mechanical, a dropped load from a truck, heck a lost tailpipe or a cardboard box blowing across the road and it will take up to 3 hours.

I used to ride the train, and at least once a year I'd be 2hrs late because someone got hit by a train earlier in the day.