The art of "averaging out"

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

The art of "averaging out"

Post by LoBaron »

I have seen a lot of posts again lately, even by people who should know better,
who take historical data as a measure for ingame results and question those results
based on exceptional real life single events.

Historical data is only useful if you take everything with influence on the events into account.
If you just look at a historical map snippet, at the the military hardware present in this snippet,
and the extreme battle result on that snippet, you will never have data to start a discussion on in
game mechanics encompassing a much broader spectrum of action-reaction variables.

The two examples that stood out lately were:
- The Midway discussion
- The Pearl Harbour damage discussion


I´d like to evaluate shortly why one has to be careful when assessing
a single historical battle as representative:

Midway:

Midway did not happen on a 500x500nm square, it did not start on July 4th, and the outcome is not
deducable only from the forces present at the day the battle took place.

The battle of Midway started over half a year before events unfolded.

From a Japanese perspective it was a compromise decision to satisfy warring high commands, the
strategic goal and the reason for the operation were vagualy outlined at best, many compromises
weakened the forces available for conduction in advance, and the operation itself relied
on unrealistic prerequisites and was doomed to failure as soon as those prerequisites were not met.
And this is just the beginning.
Based on the above there were a lot of decicions made on a tactical level which improved the
situation for the USN and slowly but continuousely worsened the position of the IJN.

As anybody else who has read it (though I disagree with some of Parshall&Tullys conclusions) I can
reccomend Shattered Sword as a very in deep read about how Japane stumbled into disaster.

Pearl Harbour:

Pearl Harbour did not happen on a 550x500nm square as well. But here the explanation is a bit
different to why it is not representative.

Since Scen1/2 starts at the night before the war, the setup is pretty accurate in terms of
firepower and decisions made leading to the result.
But the behaviour of the US on the day of the attack was relaxed to the point of willful negligence.
The reason for this is understandable, noone expected a large scale carrier raid because
the general belief still held that the queen of the seas was the BB.

Looking at "Battleship Row" the position of the ships begged for the most disastreous result
possible. It was an invitation to cause maximum damage (combined with many of the other factors
working against the Americans). Look at the pic below. Doesn´t it say "please sink me"?

Image

Any change in the positioning of the BBs may have resulted in an improvement, any small decision
to reduce the exposure against air attack would have had the potential to lead to less gutting
losses.

WitPAE does not simulate "position of ships at anchor" individually. It abstracts the position
by adding randomness, which partly can be interpreted as different outcome because of different
target layout.

Midway is on the extreme upper scale of how an offensive battle can go wrong.
These things happen in game. Just not when you expect them.

Pearl Harbour is at the slight upper scale of how an offensive battle can go right.
These things also happen in game. Just not when you expect them.

What I want to show with the above is:

Yes, AE tries to represent and even replicate events in WWII, on every scale from grand logistical
down to single pilot, inf squad, and individual ship crew.
But it does not recreate history. This is a misunderstanding. It provides you with similar capabilities
and sets up a similar initial situation and general option for the parties involved.

It does not replicate every out of average battle result wittnessed in WWII. And it shouldnt.
Be aware that it does not suffice to estimate an averaged out game result. You have to average
out the real life event as well. Only then you can begin to compare the result and come to a conclusion
about the ability of the game to recreate situations on the scale you are interested in.


My personal conclusion when looking at the specific events and comparing to the historical battle is:

In game, on a small scale, with the same setup, Midway should be quite unlikely to end
as a decisive victory for the USN, PH should be a bit less likely to be as successful
for Japan as both events were historical.
Image
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by HansBolter »

Well of course the Battle of Midway didn't start on July 4th since it occured in June.
Hans

User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19211
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by USSAmerica »

LoBaron wrote:
I have seen a lot of posts again lately, even by people who should know better,
who take historical data as a measure for ingame results and question those results
based on exceptional real life single events.

... and Knavey has barely posted in months. [:D]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Well of course the Battle of Midway didn't start on July 4th since it occured in June.

Thanks Hans. June the 4th.
I see you got to the essence of my post. [:'(]
Image
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10470
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
I see you got to the essence of my post. [:'(]
Well, I agree with your OP and sadly agree with this one as well. It was a good try though.
Pax
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by LoBaron »

Pax your new avatar is awesome! [X(]
Image
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10470
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by PaxMondo »

Motivational support for the JFB's, particularly in those long days after 1942. [:D]

(I had to crop it carefully to meet forum requirements.) [;)]
Pax
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Well of course the Battle of Midway didn't start on July 4th since it occured in June.

Thanks Hans. June the 4th.
I see you got to the essence of my post. [:'(]


Back at ya!

I was just availing myself of the oppurtunity to poke a little fun. [:D]

Whenever I undertake to lecture my fellow players here I usually get ripped a new one, so in an effort to spare you the same I avoided addressing the content of your lecture while poking fun at your most obvious error.

No offense meant and I hope none was taken.
Hans

User avatar
Cap Mandrake
Posts: 20737
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:37 am
Location: Southern California

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Cap Mandrake »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Pax your new avatar is awesome! [X(]

I was going to say that myself. Beautfiful use of light and composition and depth of field. I love art.

Of course, it doesn't hurt to have an insanely beautiful woman with her clothes off in the picture either.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by LoBaron »

No offense taken.

For some reason I always confuse the Battle of Midway with the Decalaration of Independence.
dont ask me why, probably because I´m not American. [;)]
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: USS America

LoBaron wrote:
I have seen a lot of posts again lately, even by people who should know better,
who take historical data as a measure for ingame results and question those results
based on exceptional real life single events.

... and Knavey has barely posted in months. [:D]

Did you worry there would be noone available to fill the gap? [:D]
Image
User avatar
Ketza
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Columbia, Maryland

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Ketza »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Motivational support for the JFB's, particularly in those long days after 1942. [:D]

(I had to crop it carefully to meet forum requirements.) [;)]


Awww :(
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Shark7 »

Another thing players often forget is that Midway depended heavily on the fact that the US had broken the Japanese Naval Code. If that one singular thing is not present, Midway never happens, much less becomes a major US victory. Now does that man Japan wins the war, of course not, as they could not outproduce or out-populate the US, not to mention the other Allied powers combined. What it does mean is that the IJN keeps its teeth a bit longer and the end of the war is delayed a bit.

Pearl Harbor is the same, it depends heavily on the USAAF and USN being completely unprepared for the attack. If General Short hadn't ordered the aircraft at Wheeler parked to guard against sabotage, then completely destroying the air wings would not have been possible. Perhaps a counter-attack could have been mounted against Kido Butai...or maybe the cap is present and able to launch more aircraft and mount a credible defense.

Just back to my point that 1 thing being different can have a big impact on history.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by oldman45 »

So for the sake of a bit of fun, lets say the attack of midway took place but the US never broke the code. Would it have been a fight that only one side showed up for? What are your thoughts if they did take the island? What could they have really done with it?
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I have seen a lot of posts again lately, even by people who should know better,
who take historical data as a measure for ingame results and question those results
based on exceptional real life single events.

Historical data is only useful if you take everything with influence on the events into account.

Agree fully. However as i'm sure you know, its not about people who "should know better" They do but their Agendas required them to act in spite of said "knowing better" The Midway thread showed at least two typical ones...one actually involving the game, another had nothing to do with the game itself at all.

I, on the other hand should have "known better" than to respond to the former agenda. [:D] Sometimes I slip.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

So for the sake of a bit of fun, lets say the attack of midway took place but the US never broke the code. Would it have been a fight that only one side showed up for? What are your thoughts if they did take the island? What could they have really done with it?

If they took the island, honestly not much they could do with it...send out Emilies to scout around PH perhaps?

But with no code broken, would Nimitz have known that he could set a trap at Midway? Probably no more fight than what was seen for the first 6 months of the war. Breaking the code is what led to a decisive US victory.

Which is the point I am making...change 1 variable, and it may or may not have an effect on the end outcome. We can never know.

As to the game, it more or less lets us change that variable, be it in that the Allied player doesn't get the forewarning of the invasion, or the Japanese player decides not to invade or at least go 'all in' for it. As far as the game goes, we the players provide the variables.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Graymane
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Bellevue, NE

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Graymane »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Motivational support for the JFB's, particularly in those long days after 1942. [:D]

(I had to crop it carefully to meet forum requirements.) [;)]

That picture approaches LST's for viewing pleasure while reading the forums.
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

So for the sake of a bit of fun, lets say the attack of midway took place but the US never broke the code. Would it have been a fight that only one side showed up for? What are your thoughts if they did take the island? What could they have really done with it?

probably. Nimitz could retake it at his leasure. The IJN couldn't skulk around indefinately. Parshalls and Tully covered it pretty well as have past authors. Midway was too small and too isolated to act as a proper logistics base for a move against Hawaii. Even if it had, by that time Oahu had a quarter million military personel present. Yamamotto's goal was to draw out the US fleet and defeat it. They were supposed to come running after Midway was invaded. I just don't see Nimitz doing that. With the US not playing his game he'd have to either go back to square one or [worse] actually attempt a Hawaii op of which it's hard not to predict it ending in tears.

Instead of Tarawa (or Lunga), Midway would then make a good 1st practice assault for the USN/USMC.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by mdiehl »

Which is the point I am making...change 1 variable, and it may or may not have an effect on the end outcome. We can never know.


I disagree. That's why people DO history in the first place. To look at the variables, identify the ones that matter, and project how changing them could alter outcomes. Without the codebreaking at Midway you don't have a Midway battle because the USN would not have been there. So "acquiring intel about the objective and timetable" was obviously a key variable that set the battle in motion.

It wasn't what decided the battle though. The battle was decided more or less by the Japanese use of an operational plan that required both perfect execution and the complete absence of any USN CVs in the area, and a USN operational plan that was simple and fault tolerant.

So if you assume that "Codebreaking intel of the Midway sort" was available, and if you assume that players use the same or analogous forces, then it is quite reasonable to expect the same outcome from a consim as the historical battle produced.

After all, you have to anchor your Consim on SOME sort of historical data. If you just make up a range of results from cake to catastrophe, you haven't really made a Consim at all. Just a game.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: The art of "averaging out"

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: oldman45

So for the sake of a bit of fun, lets say the attack of midway took place but the US never broke the code. Would it have been a fight that only one side showed up for? What are your thoughts if they did take the island? What could they have really done with it?

probably. Nimitz could retake it at his leasure. The IJN couldn't skulk around indefinately. Parshalls and Tully covered it pretty well as have past authors. Midway was too small and too isolated to act as a proper logistics base for a move against Hawaii. Even if it had, by that time Oahu had a quarter million military personel present. Yamamotto's goal was to draw out the US fleet and defeat it. They were supposed to come running after Midway was invaded. I just don't see Nimitz doing that. With the US not playing his game he'd have to either go back to square one or [worse] actually attempt a Hawaii op of which it's hard not to predict it ending in tears.

Instead of Tarawa (or Lunga), Midway would then make a good 1st practice assault for the USN/USMC.

Agreed. Taking Hawaii would be the only logical consequence of attacking and invading Midway. There was a lenghy discussion some time ago where
some stated that, since Hawaii is not self sufficient, Japan, even in the highly improbable event they take the islands, would be overwhelmed by
keeping the population supplied and under control.

Contrary to in game, where a conquest could be an interesting perspective, even if extremely hard to pull off.
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”