"Acceptable levels of random" Topic

And so I feel like I'm playing a dice game. And we all know dice are "random" so a game becomes random.

That's why I've moved away from numeric dice being used to decide meaningful decision points… because they are too random.

So here's where I think there is a disconnect. There are random, unpredicted things that can occur—lightning strikes, equipment breakdowns, getting lost, etc. Model them or not.

However, voluntary and planned actions are not necessarily random. When you "activate" a unit I assume you desire it to act and issue an order. Units rarely execute an order immediately. To get around unrealistic outcomes, like failing to activate for 6 turns in a row, try this.

Roll a D6 for activation:
Ace crew activates immediately on a 1-3, one turn later on a 4-5, and three turns later on a 6.

Veteran crew activates immediately on a 1-2, one turn later on a 3-4, and three turns later on a 5-6.

Poor crew activates in two turns on a 1-3, three turns later on a 4-5, and four turns later on a 6.

I think you get the idea. Modify to your desire.

Better crews will perform more actions in a specified period of time than inferior crews as it should be. It's not entirely predictable or random.

There would be some record-keeping required but it would create a level of realistic FOW as your opponent is unsure of exactly when you'll activate but would have a fair idea. It would be somewhat predictable.

To complicate matters, the length of a turn and the level (1:1, squad, platoon, etc) means realistically some units may be able to perform several actions in one turn.

Wolfhag

👍🏻 re your.reply to uahcha above.

Agreed on random.. I keepnusing it because it was part of the OP, where the example didn't seem random.. just a run of bad luck.

I get your activation example to… its too much math for me and because it's actually about the.dice roll numbers it's going to feel random. Most humans are poor with statistical odds and we focus on the numbers.

Agree scenarios can have the special events built in. More.gemrally. the fact that a platoon pulled back becuae kf a swarm of bees, imagining they were outflanked or other non combat reason doesn't need to be explained by cause only by effect unless as you say its part of the scenario.

As you say better crews or units should be ablento so more. But I find attaching numeric values and randomisers to decide that feels too…. random… hence my us3 of actions. A better trained and or experienced unit will have more options they will have more opertunity to change negatives to positives and personality cannister things but because it's actions it doesn't, fkr me atvkeast feel "random" I can think of any number of reasons why the AFV stays bogged down. I don't need odds or a chart to give probabiliti2s as teg players or explanations why… only thatbit happened my imagination can fill in the blanks.
And I don't want to remember not that was the one where I rolled 6 1s in a row. But thats where the afv got stuck and I couldn't move it.
🫡

I didn't say there wasn't anything between.. but as you might recall I'm a feel person while recognising that statistics play there part. What I'm nkt swayed by is that they hold the answers.. just because…

Gamesman6:

OKay, so what is inbetween as far as you know? There is nothing wrong with 'feel'. Lots of folks, from historians to scientists use 'feel' as part of their work. Lots of insights that way. But those insights have to be tested against the real thing.

The bottom line is whether those intuitive conclusions test out to be actually representative of history, or they remain just your feeling of the moment. If intuition was such a great abitrator of sussing out meaningful interpretations of history/reality, there would be no need for statistics, science, or objective declarations of evidence.

I'm pretty sure we've done this already… I just said that where evidence or meaningfull statics they can be used.

It's not a binarybkf feel or statistics. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Statistics are open to misuse as other methods.

Of course comparison to historical situations. But as per the op. However unlikely an event. It can still happen and it could cluster.

It's also how react to those things and that is as much to do with how those are presented.

Humans aren't good with black swans.

I'm pretty sure we've done this already… I just said that where evidence or meaningfull statics they can be used.

It's not a binary bkf feel or statistics. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Statistics are open to misuse as other methods.

Gameman6:
"Pretty sure?" Is that something everyone would see, or just you probably?

No, it is not binary. If I feel that combined arms in the Napoleonic wars played out like 'X' and needs to be portrayed like that, fine. The question is, what is the process for establishing that your 'feel' actually does portray the historical process? There are methods for doing that, statistics being one method, but simulation designers have a number of tested methods for objectively validating their guesses, assumptions, and intuitions. Something beyond 'pretty sure.' Something that others can see is a valid design.

Pretty sure cause I'm actually sure we've discussed it.. the pretty sure what that we'd been over much of this already.

The point I'm making… not a question for me… you and I have gone down a route where my points and rhetoric was mistaken for questions. That where meaningful information isn't available I'll use feel, As I'll use any other methods to get me to what I want from this.

As to whether anyone else thinks it's "valid" I don't really care beyond trying make sure I'm clear on why and what I'm doing.

Given the op being about acceptable levels of random, in game terms, not statistically, and no better answer to that than wolfhags, it's up to each person.

But if nothing else we're proving the more things change the more they stay the same. 😉🙃🫡