Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm a big fan of FJ Fletcher. No idea why he get's crapped on.

Well, I guess if you were a big fan of his then you wouldn't, would you? [8D]

I have an idea...Morison did so everybody does.

[mdiehl]

A computer wargame ( or a board wargame for that matter ) is not a mathematical proposition.

Of course it is. It's just not absolutely a cartesian proposition. The designer is not required to establish anything as rigid as a formal set of proofs prior to development. As a mathematical proposition it owes alot to statistics, if it is done right, or to nothing at all if it's done cockeyed. And statistics are a distributional phenomenon -- muddier waters than mathematical "proofs" to be sure.

My first degree by the way culminated in an oral treatise on Cauchy's Theorem before the faculty assembled. [;)] These days I'm far more a statistician though and not at all a mathematical theorist.

The designer decided to put this abstraction in the game rightly or wrongly - and in general "design decisions" do not need to be justified ( remember that old SPI qualification - "rules question" will be answered - but not "design questions" or words to that effect ) ... so for better or worse ... abstractions such as the ZB may be added by the designer with no justification whatsoever.

Quite so.

Unlike mathematical propositions which do need to be proven true or false unless they remain unproven in which case they are called conjectures.

Yes, but even conjectures can be tested empirically if they deem themselves to be germane to detectable phenomena. Vis the Zero, its "performance" can be defined by standards that, if they have any value as conjecture, ought to be empirically testable. And to the degree that they ARE testable, evidence does not support the claims made about it in WitP. Thus, if WitP is conjecture, it is demonstrably false conjecture.

[jwilkerson]

Thus, if WitP is conjecture, it is demonstrably false conjecture.

WITP is not conjecture - WITP is not a mathematical system nor any part of one - it is a computer wargame - different beast entirely !

[mdiehl]

WITP is not conjecture - WITP is not a mathematical system nor any part of one - it is a computer wargame - different beast entirely !

It is a computer wargame. It is also a mathematical (or more precisely, an arithmetic one linked by mathematical logical rules) system. There are determinative if then statements that link quantified variables in arithmetic ways to derive a new data state from a prior data state. Basically just a very complex arithmetical model.

It's also a conjecture. The equations that link variables to produce new iterated states of the data are mathematical equations each of which posits, conjecturally, a relationship between the variables and thereby data in the variables. By offering this complex arithmetical model as a WW2 PTO strategy game, the designer further conjectures that the model that he has offered bears some sort of consistent and systematic relationship with an underlying dynamic that accurately represents the relationships between "those things and people encompassed by World War 2 in the Pacific Theater."

The point of these sorts of discussions is to assess the degree to which the conjectured mathematical relationships represent a reasonable model of the real world phenomenon.

[spence]

(I just can't get the screen to print or save..--..)

PBEM DATA: Scenario 2 - Rising Sun

Jan 15th, 1942: ZB=+4...76 P40B/E lost A2A vs 31 A6M2

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm a big fan of FJ Fletcher. No idea why he get's crapped on.

Well, I guess if you were a big fan of his then you wouldn't, would you? [8D]

I have an idea...Morison did so everybody does.

Just thinking out loud, not picking a fight with anyone here, as every one is certainly entitled to think what they wish, however...

Alot of folks like to fault different commanders, Nagumo comes to mind, Halsey, Fletcher, and everyone's favorite guy to hate - Douglas MacArthur.

I don't know, no-one is perfect, but I have never had to carry the weight of thousands or tens of thousands of lives and millions of dollars of national treasure on my decisions. I don't judge any of those guys harshly seeing how I know I could never really understand what it was like to be in their shoes...

[Skyros]

An interview with Saburo Sakai

http://www.warbirdforum.com/sakai.htm

On the Zero
During the war, I was convinced the Zero Model 21 was the best fighter plane anywhere. It was always number one with me. Then a few years ago, at Champlin, I had the chance to fly in a Mustang and take the controls for a while. What an incredible plane! It could do anything the Zero could, and many things the Zero can't, like a high-speed, spiraling dive. In the Zero, the stick would be too heavy to control the plane at those speeds. The Mustang's number one with me now, and I'm afraid the Zero's number two!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm a big fan of FJ Fletcher. No idea why he get's crapped on.

Well, I guess if you were a big fan of his then you wouldn't, would you? [8D]

I have an idea...Morison did so everybody does.

The Marines, much of the Navy brass, and countless bluejackets were years ahead of him. Morison stood in line.

[moses]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Thus, if WitP is conjecture, it is demonstrably false conjecture.

WITP is not conjecture - WITP is not a mathematical system nor any part of one - it is a computer wargame - different beast entirely !

I agree and surprisingly the post fails to fill my screen. You must not be very smart[:D]
On a seperate topic:
Its amasing how suddenly all the smartest most intelligent people in the world have suddenly decended on this board to discuss how much they hate it.

Conjectures, underlying dynamics, cartesion propositions, ad hominem, etc. Shouldn't these guys all be out winning the fight on terror or something.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: moses

Its amasing how suddenly all the smartest most intelligent people in the world have suddenly decended on this board to discuss how much they hate it.

Conjectures, underlying dynamics, cartesion propositions, ad hominem, etc. Shouldn't these guys all be out winning the fight on terror or something.

No, the geniuses at the New York Times are covering that angle.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

An interview with Saburo Sakai

http://www.warbirdforum.com/sakai.htm

On the Zero
During the war, I was convinced the Zero Model 21 was the best fighter plane anywhere. It was always number one with me. Then a few years ago, at Champlin, I had the chance to fly in a Mustang and take the controls for a while. What an incredible plane! It could do anything the Zero could, and many things the Zero can't, like a high-speed, spiraling dive. In the Zero, the stick would be too heavy to control the plane at those speeds. The Mustang's number one with me now, and I'm afraid the Zero's number two!

More from that site about the Zero's maneuverability:

On the Zero's maneuverability
Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."

[Skyros]

I like that part plus what he had to say about Genda and the George.

[moses]

No, the geniuses at the New York Times are covering that angle.

Really which side are they on????

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

I like that part plus what he had to say about Genda and the George.

You mean "it (the George) was a piece of crap made by a third rate manufacturere" That part?[;)]

[Don Bowen]

I've just read "Shattered Sword" by Parshall and Tully. I highly recommend this book to all. In addition, the reading of it has convinced me:

1. The Zero bonus should be removed.
2. The Allied Damage Control Bonus should be retained.
3. The allied Multi-carrier Strike Coordination Penalty should be retained.

[Skyros]

Yeah that part.

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: Skyros

I like that part plus what he had to say about Genda and the George.

You mean "it (the George) was a piece of crap made by a third rate manufacturere" That part?[;)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

WITP is not conjecture - WITP is not a mathematical system nor any part of one - it is a computer wargame - different beast entirely !

It is a computer wargame. It is also a mathematical (or more precisely, an arithmetic one linked by mathematical logical rules) system. There are determinative if then statements that link quantified variables in arithmetic ways to derive a new data state from a prior data state. Basically just a very complex arithmetical model.

It's also a conjecture. The equations that link variables to produce new iterated states of the data are mathematical equations each of which posits, conjecturally, a relationship between the variables and thereby data in the variables. By offering this complex arithmetical model as a WW2 PTO strategy game, the designer further conjectures that the model that he has offered bears some sort of consistent and systematic relationship with an underlying dynamic that accurately represents the relationships between "those things and people encompassed by World War 2 in the Pacific Theater."

The point of these sorts of discussions is to assess the degree to which the conjectured mathematical relationships represent a reasonable model of the real world phenomenon.

I think you got your Math degree from a different school than I did [:D]

Discussing WITP in terms of pure mathematics is non-sense per my training .. so instead I would steer us towards the realm of "applied mathematics" where there is some "machinery" that can help us.

If ( and many would disagree with this ) we assume for the sake of discussion, that WITP was intended to be a simulation ( and this may be what you are driving at ) then we could discuss two aspects. One of these aspects is .. have we implemented the simulation technically correctly ( such as if we intended to have A+B=C in the simulation ... does it ) and the other aspect is whether it models what we intended it to model.

I make simulations as a part of my job - and I can certainly say that we know our simulations ( our models ) are not 100% accurate - if they were - they would not be models. We can always name a factor we are not considering - hence we always know our models are not 100% complete and hence not 100% accurate. So why do we use them ? Economics. We have three levels of "investigative tools" to bring to the table. "Analysis", "Simulation" and "Empirical Observation" ... each of these tools requires a different level of investment of time and money ... and each has its place in the "tool kit". Analysis is often used to determine what tool to use next ... simulation is used mostly for "What if" .. but anything that we would present to a customer as a solution .. must be tested on a real tool ( in my case a semi-conductor manufacturing "tool" ) .. but performing all tests on a real tool for all what if analysis would be far to expensive in terms of time and resources, hence simulation is used ( and where appropriate the even cheaper analysis tool.

So, back from digression ( just want to make sure my use of the term "simulation" is understood ) ... "simulation" is a mathematical model ... which ( in our case ) attempts to model something in the real world. The "purpose" of the model has much to do with whether it may be judged to be successful or not successful. There are no absolutely correct models ( absolute implies 100% .. not possible ). The purpose of WITP ( if it were a simulation ) is to provide entertainment to its players. Its purpose is not to provide the USN with a training tool. Its purpose is to provide its owners and creators with some piece of their livelihood and in exchange for the selling price, to provide entertainment to the customers. If it is a simulation, it is to provide this entertainment by providing us with some type of simulation of WITP ( 1941-1945 ) ... but again its success is not measured in absolute terms .. but instead in terms of its purpose.

Given the "niche" market for a product like WITP ( after all it has no Orcs or Spacemen ) and given the level of activity on this forum - and sales indicated by that level of activity. WITP has been unexpectedly successful - at its purpose. Can it be improved as a simulation ? Absolutely all simulations can be improved. However, there becomes a point at which the value of improving the simulation is less than the benefit to be gained from improving it. In my world - we have a "quick and dirty" analyzer for our tool. It can be set up in minutes and run in seconds ... I can answer questions over the phone with it .. but it is far from as accurate as our more detailed "simulation" model .. which takes hours to set up .. and dozens of minutes to run ... but each tool is used in the proper place for that tool.

If the purpose of these discussions is to assess the "gaps" between WITP and the real world - attention also needs to be paid to the purpose for which WITP is and will be used. And priorities set accordingly. Again, we cannot close to the gap to zero - no one could afford that.

[mdiehl]

Conjectures, underlying dynamics, cartesion propositions, ad hominem, etc. Shouldn't these guys all be out winning the fight on terror or something.

That would require an administration that gives credence to informed expertise qua dogma in policy formulation.

I think you got your Math degree from a different school than I did

Probabilistically speaking that'd seem likely. [;)]

Discussing WITP in terms of pure mathematics is non-sense per my training .. so instead I would steer us towards the realm of "applied mathematics" where there is some "machinery" that can help us

I agree. But then no one has suggested that it is "pure mathematics." Only that it is a model. You can substitute "simulation" if you like and as you have and that's fine. The rest that you wrote I generally agree. Mostly. WitP does advertise itself as a simulation of WW2. By that stated standard it is a bad model. If its only purpose was to generate revenue without regard to value as a sim, it might well be successful.

[moses]

By that stated standard it is a bad model.

Clearly this is unscientific. For one thing the word "bad" is not long enough.

But more importantly Jwilkerson has just brilliently explained (and no sarcasm here) that no simulation is 100% accurate. Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly. I think it only means that you don't like it which if so OK just say that.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: moses

No, the geniuses at the New York Times are covering that angle.

Really which side are they on????

Theirs.