"Coming of the 'Historical anti-Christ' to PA in July" Topic

ALL,

This posting and explanation goes with the three (3) slides that WERE posted, But I can't go into EDIT to provide the words to the slides,…That part is provided below.

First off, now that the effects of my original "TMP Historical Wargaming Blasts!" postings are dying down, and I have some actual "CdO Players from Historicon 2022" to provide YOU with their own independent opinions and assessment of my CdO Historically Based Wargame Design,..it's time for me to show & explain the historical basis of the design and provide my motives and goals in taking the overall approach I embarked upon on 'Napoleon's Birthday' last year (15 August 2021).

Let's start with the Historical Design Basis for the CdO wargame. Because I need You to understand "How CdO was put together" in order to better appreciate how it is designed, put together and how it works,..and why it is historically accurate.

An Important FACT to remember upfront, in respect to reading through what appears to be needless content, jargon and analytical BS below is: "YOU only get as good of a Historical Product as the effort YOU plan & design into it." There are 'NO FREE LUNCHES' and 'YOU CAN'T SIMPLY PULL THE CORRECT HISTORICAL ANSWERS OUT OF YOUR REAR END, ESPECIALLY, IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR OR WHERE IT IS LOCATED!', which unfortunately, is very commonplace today.

A. Facts:
1. Military History is REAL. Which means the people, events, actions, timelines and places that make up Military History are REAL too.
2. 'TIME' is NOT a Constant.
3. Statistical Models can measure, analyze and provide insights (with a high degree of confidence, 85% or better) as to the performance of Historical Battlefield Operating Systems (BOS).

B. Known-Unknowns: The Military Historical Record does NOT provide a complete, uniform or consistent picture of every event nor does it always provide the 'Level of Detail' needed to provide 100% factual data.

C. Assumptions:
1. The "Human Factor" is a 'True Constant' throughout Military History.
2. Human Beings are directly effected by their Environment.
3. The "Human Environment" consists of Real (Physical factors) & Psychological (Mental & Emotional factors).

D. CdO Hypothesis:
"Wargamers" (i.e., Humans) If placed in an accurate 'Synthetic (historical) Battlefield Environment' and provided with the means (via reference metrics and accurate feedback): such as; Time, Space, Motion & Observation, can adapt their behavior to become "a working Human entity" within this
Battlefield environment, without need of lengthy rules, restrictions or reliance on abstractions."

On this first slide below is a diagram of the CdO's 'Theory of Combat & System Architecture'. The flow starts in Green Arrows emanating from the "Player Box" on the far left and moves through the Synthetic Battlefield Models (i.e. CDR & SA) and then into the Combat Model box containing the three (3) C3, Shoot & Move Battlefield Operating System (BOS) Models.

Notice that there is a bold vertical 'Dashed Line' between the "Player" and rest of the "CdO Simulation". That is a 'Separation Line' between the LIVE (i.e., You) component and the Constructive (i.e., Simulation) component. Note on terminology: a) Models provide the functional 'Reality' and b) Simulation provide the means to link the separate "Models" together by means of a common system architecture.

The next slide is an important informational Data Collection and Historical Wargame Design 'Rule of Thumb'. Which simply states "You need at least Three (3) examples of anything" to even begin considering it with any kind of reasonable credibility. Historians & Wargame designers ARE the MAIN abusers/violators of this simple rule of thumb. They read about one example and think it's The GOSPEL!

The final slide I have for You below, is a 'side by side' comparisons of the Historical results from one of COL Depuy's senior Analysts who was working on Napoleonic Combat (circa 1967) and my own CdO Historical results (Aug 2021).

The MAIN take away you need to glean from these to two (2) curves is that, "they ARE virtually the Same!" The only real differences are the minor fluctuations due to the differences caused by the 94-Samples DOD/US Army used versus the 757-Samples I used.

In Historical Research, as in Science, you want to be able to substantiate and to verify YOUR results by comparing them to other totally INDEPENDENT studies of the same type, such as this one.

This just one of the reason I am able to make the seemingly Outlandish Claim of: "CdO HISTORICAL FIDELITY". Because I have checked and compared my results to other experts in the field and we are both coming up with the same results.

Regards,

James

Garth in the Park & TMP readership,

I basically set about fixing the things that you were commenting upon above, at virtually the same time you were crafting your message to hose me down! Not that I don't need it, from time to time. ;^) ;^)

My main delay & problem was ensuring the pictures (slides) posted before writing the text that go with them. Apparently I must have 'timed out' or 'exceeded the number of time you can edit Your posting', because I can't edit the original posting anymore.

Regardless, I've already begun my effort to show you and the rest of TMP, How CdO was Designed AND How it produces Historically Valid results.

Coincidentally enough, the Main Player Issue you are going to hear about from many of the Historicon 2022 CdO Players is the very same issue that Frederick the Great of Prussia and the French military theorist, M. Guibert and M. Folard all comment upon:

1. Frederick the Great: "The 'Coup d'Oeil' may be reduced, properly speaking. to two points, the first of which is, the having abilities to judge how many troops a certain extent of country can contain; this talent can only be acquired with practice, for having laid out several camps, the eye will gain so exact an idea of space, that you will seldom make any mistake in your calculations."

"The other, and by far the most material point, is to be able to distinguish, at first sight. all the advantages of which any given space of ground is capable. This art is to be acquired, and even brought to perfection, though a man be not absolutely born with a military genius."

2. M. Guibert adds: "Too much attention, cannot be given to 'Coup d'Oeil', it is more difficult to acquire in the Cavalry, than the Infantry, because the motion of the Infantry are much slower, and where the eye finds more time to measure and compare objects: in a contrary manner, as the movements of Cavalry are more rapid, the resolution of an Officer should be taken more speedily; and as the point of sight are much more difficult to fix upon, so the least error in the Coup d'Oeil is productive of the greatest deviations; in short, the same alacrity with which a false motion is made, taken advantage of by a skilled enemy, would encourage him to profit by the error"

3. Frenchman M. Folard: "that the Coup d'Oeil does not depend on ourselves; that it is a gift from nature; that is not to be acquired in campaigns; and in short that it must be born with us, without which the most piercing eyes in the world can see nothing, and we walk in the thickest darkness; but, they deceive themselves, we have all the Coup d'Oeil, according to the degree of genius or good sense that it has pleased ‘Providence' to bestow on us; knowledge refines and brings it to perfection, and experience confirms it to us."

Notwithstanding, Coup d'Oeil, in my CdO wargame design, serves and acts as the Player's, "Human Interface" into the realm of "Battlefield Reality", which is controlled and governed by the "Laws of Physics and the Battlefield Environment."

This task in CdO, which largely involves doing the "All this Mental Math in the Player's mind", just like the three (3) Napoleonic Historical Authorities I've sited above, are telling you,..It's an "ACQUIRED SKILL", not just another "WARGAME MECHANIC!", which is one of the reasons Why it takes Players 10-20 minutes for the "Light to Go On!"

TIME is the other major factor in quickly overcoming the Coup d'Oeil transition and use issue. The majority Historicon Players will tell you that the 'Asymmetrical Time' system that CdO uses, needs to be streamlined & simplified in order to reduce the number of 'Mental Math' issues that the Player need to track and help speed up the tempo of playing the wargame itself. Jerome and I discussed this issue, at great length during our trip back to Detroit on Sunday. So, these fixes are on the way.

However, this is a 'double-edged sword', because as M. Guibert points out in his own comments above, these 'mental details' you are tracking, are the very same details that a better CdO Player and his Battlefield counterpart both use in order to derive tactical advantages over their enemy Commanders on the very same battlefield.

Again, this is NOT a CdO Wargame Mechanic, it's a critical skill that Players need, that only gets better with practice, as the historical authorities mention above.

How's that for REAL HISTORY in action, with No extra Rules, that You can use on the Wargame Tabletop!

Regards,

James

Reading many of these posts I am left with the feeling that what you are doing is interesting, but some of the more "grandiose" (a Garth puts it) statements lead to a backlash from the community.

There are two areas that I am questioning. One is the multi-variable statistical modeling and how accurately your model is in relation to each of these variables. In my youth I would have debated statistical models and their accuracy with you, but that is not something that I am really inclined to do these days. Without publishing your actual model with the supporting data, such a discussion would probably not fruitful in any case.

The second, and more interesting thing to me, is the accuracy of the data. If I understand correctly most of the numerical data came from Digby's work, where even the author acknowledges that there were competing data sources to resolve.

It has been my experience that in investigating historical data there is often lack of data or conflicting data. Oman for example discusses the battle of Novara and most war-gamers base there recreation of this battle on his work. Now discussion with the Historical Society of Novara shows that the Battle neither unfolded at the location he suggested nor in any manner similar to what he suggested. I draw your attention to this matter as Oman was one of the sources that you quoted.

I have another battle that I am recreating in the late Roman period. One Historical expert has detailed how and where he thinks the battle unfolded and details on estimated OOB and casualties. He regularly quotes one primary source to support his arguments. However, when you read the primary source that he uses he selectively ignores the parts that are counter to his arguments. I caution against blindly trusting historians – even when they agree.

Now with any model, garbage in equals garbage out. Now in case I am misunderstood, I want to be clear – I am in no way saying the work by Digby is garbage. However, we do need to accept the possibility that not all of the data may be accurate. Also in processing the data we also need to allow for the possibility that it is not all one data set, but could be multiple data sets.

If we allow for inaccuracies in the data, there will be inaccuracies in the output of the model. Not that that is an issue as long as we understand that.

What you are doing is no doubt interesting and not without merit. I am always cautious when I hear claims that something is the best thing since sliced bread. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be seriously considered.

James think or planning you will be at Fall In?

14Bore,

Not Likely!

I already have a major commitment to work, that runs from 25 October through 8 November 2022.

Regards,..Analsim (aka: James)

Well…
The light went on…
Intense But…
Maybe it is a flash bulb?

Please post links to any website/blog site that has more documentation or a youtube of presentations made. Thanks