Game design and 'fudge' factors

[treespider]

Some more ramblings from the peanut gallery -

A number of threads are currently going on about problems with the current models - namely Tom Hunter's Naval Gunnery thread and Ron's Air units not flying. I'm not here to suggest they are perfect or even correct but the threads have gotten me to think about game design...and I have some questions.

As one looks at combat in ever increasing detail how does the designer factor in the vagaries of war?

When I refer to vagaries, I mean things like reports not getting back to the people in charge to make decisions or individual initiative and heroism. Some specific examples that have been repeatedly cited by myself and others are Tone's search plane, the Indianapolis getting torpedoed, etc. One of my favorite instances occurred during the Battle of Stalingrad. IIRC a German sergeant was single handedly responsible for ensuring that several thousand horses were not captured by the Soviets. This action 'may' have been responsible for Paulus' pocket lasting a few weeks longer than it should have.

My point is that as game design starts to examine the details of units down to individual guns on planes and ships and it approaches the micro tactical how does the designer factor in 'luck' or "happenstance' or other 'fudge" factors that make up a weapons effectiveness such as training and doctrine? And to what extent should these be modeled?

If the designer wants to model the attributes of a land unit by saying that it has 3 .50 caliber machinegun, shouldn't the designer also try to model how that weapon was utilized by the unit? Shouldn't the designer also then model the ammunition supply for that specifc gun? And if the designer is going to do that shouldn't he also model how that ammunition is packaged and shipped? And if he does that does he not now have to model the personnel responsible for shipping it? Should he also have to model contract negotiations with dock workers and there individual productivity? Does he have to model weapon reliability? Does he have to model spare parts/and or replacements for the weapon and there availablity? At what point is any of this 'fudged" and if any of it is 'fudged' should the designer decide to look at the individual gun in the first place?[&:]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well - the systems work more or less...

but the problem with it is we get no informations.
Like the "only 1 out of 5 planes start"-problem... the logic says, we have prepared 2 Weeks, every engine works, no problems... the pilots are rested, fuel and ammo is here... our recons/radars detect the carrier task force, around 120 miles outside... and what do we do ? Nothing. Just sit and wait. That sounds strange.

For the ammo/parts micromanagements... well, why not ? make a good interface, with cannabalizing of parts (damaged/destroyed planes) and everything is fine.
Give us more freedom, not less. But give us also more informations. My 10 destroyers (with radar) achieve surprize against 4 pt´s and lost 2 against zero pt´s ? well, disturbing but it could happen. Just give me some details. Even more for carrier battles...

And mostly for land combatthis is true The results are strange, but with no informations it is laughable... and i fear for EF II...

[Ron Saueracker]

Well, I would attempt to get the basics down and working smoothly, then tweak it for variances and what ifs later. Many claim the end results are good, but really, I've seen a preponderance of improbable to near impossible outcomes.

One thing I'm starting to think. FOW. This can be utilized two ways. It can be used to add uncertainty and variance to a wargame, or it can be used as the catch all phrase to explain away all sorts of problems. Convenient if the latter.

[Mike Scholl]

One problem is that the level of detail is schizophrenic. You can send an airstrike out at 100 feet with orders to strafe a particular port---but you can't even give a naval airstrike a "priority". When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One problem is that the level of detail is schizophrenic. You can send an airstrike out at 100 feet with orders to strafe a particular port---but you can't even give a naval airstrike a "priority". When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd.

Oh no!! With 5 or 6 enemy flat tops in the area, I PREFER my 45 dive bombers and 60 torpedo planes go after those 6 PC's !!!!!
(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)

[witpqs]

treespider,

I think it was Clauswitz who coined the coined the term 'friction' for what you are describing - the simplest things become incredibly difficult becuase you try to do them all correctly at the same time. The designers have tried to simluate these things with the various 'die rolls' and checks that have to be made for various things to happen.

Check out the navweapons site that Tom Hunter referenced in the naval gunnery thread and look at the Surigao Strait writeup. Every battleship fired way less rounds than their 'normal' rate of fire, and that would drive a lot of people nuts in this game. The writeup is great because it go into detail on the variety of reasons why this was so.

Consider BB's Washington and South Dakota at Guadalcanal. South Dakota suffered an electrical failure not due to enemy fire and signaled she was combat ineffective. Washington pounded Kirishima (I think it was) but at one point ceased fire for several minutes. Why? Her new radar was mounted in such a way that it could not cover a large arc behind the ship. South Dakota's troubles had left it uncertain where she was - causing Washington's captain to wonder 'is it really an IJN BB we're pounding or a friendly? [&:]'

These vagaries of war are huge, and a system that even partly succeeds at modeling them is way better than none at all.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Oh no!! With 5 or 6 enemy flat tops in the area, I PREFER my 45 dive bombers and 60 torpedo planes go after those 6 PC's !!!!!
(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)

Like the Swordfish that attacked a US Coast Guard cutter instead of Bismark...[X(]

[acmejeff]

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)

I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast! [:D]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Oh no!! With 5 or 6 enemy flat tops in the area, I PREFER my 45 dive bombers and 60 torpedo planes go after those 6 PC's !!!!!
(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)

Like the Swordfish that attacked a US Coast Guard cutter instead of Bismark...[X(]

Yeah, I know, I was just waiting for you to show...My point is (and always has been) that not ALL of my pilots are nervous, anxious, ignorant buffoons who can't tell a cannon from a cantaloupe, (just some of them!)[:D]

Please re-read Mike's point as this is very valid, in that these gents *intentionally* by-passed Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and scads of troopships seeking nothing but....CARRIERS!!!!!

"When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd."

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: acmejeff

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)

I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast! [:D]

Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map", but you can only get there after the arrival in California of the S.S.Minnow, (a rather small AK.)[;)]

BTW, IIRC, the island has exactly one(1) Japanese sailor there at present.
Since the S.S.Minnow is unarmed and only carries a small number of troops, the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: acmejeff

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)

I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast! [:D]

Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map", but you can only get there after the arrival in California of the S.S.Minnow, (a rather small AK.)[;)]

BTW, IIRC, the island has exactly one(1) Japanese sailor there at present.
Since the S.S.Minnow is unarmed and only carries a small number of troops, the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......

Ahh but just wait till your run across Skull island somewhere south of Sumatra!

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: acmejeff

(Now this is where some apologist chimes in to say my pilots did not know a PC from a flat top, (nor Gilligan's Island for that matter!)

I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast! [:D]

Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map", but you can only get there after the arrival in California of the S.S.Minnow, (a rather small AK.)[;)]

BTW, IIRC, the island has exactly one(1) Japanese sailor there at present.
Since the S.S.Minnow is unarmed and only carries a small number of troops, the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......

I've always thought Gilligan's Island was off Florida. [8D]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: acmejeff



I play my PBEM game on the stock map and was wondering if any of the mods have Gilligan's Island on them. Since it seems to be a hard place to find it might work out as a great place for my Japanese forces to use as a raiding base against the West Coast! [:D]

Yes, acmejeff, if you are using CHS, Gilligan's Island is indeed "on the map", but you can only get there after the arrival in California of the S.S.Minnow, (a rather small AK.)[;)]

BTW, IIRC, the island has exactly one(1) Japanese sailor there at present.
Since the S.S.Minnow is unarmed and only carries a small number of troops, the Japanese sailor can only be countered with either the "Ginger" or "Mary Anne" cluster devices.......

I've always thought Gilligan's Island was off Florida. [8D]

Well, bstarr...That's why you've never found it !!

[m10bob]

Ahh but just wait till your run across Skull island somewhere south of Sumatra!

Before long, we'll have them thinking "breadfruit" is a real thing!

[herwin]

You're referring to the 'software quality' of the units--the likelihood of someone doing the 'right thing'. It can be modelled in terms of the performance degradation from proving ground figures. It generally went down faster than the percentage casualties. How much faster depended on the demographics of the unit. Poor units were particularly reliant on their best leaders and lost performance much more quickly than elite units. Call it the FUF.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: herwin

You're referring to the 'software quality' of the units--the likelihood of someone doing the 'right thing'. It can be modelled in terms of the performance degradation from proving ground figures. It generally went down faster than the percentage casualties. How much faster depended on the demographics of the unit. Poor units were particularly reliant on their best leaders and lost performance much more quickly than elite units. Call it the FUF.

FUF as a matter of fact can be measured accurately, but is generally encountered only after it reaches the FUBAR plateau, at which time it becomes FUBAB.

[Fornadan]

What this game really need is something like this...

NAVAL ACCIDENT PHASE

BB Mutsu sinks...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Yeah, I know, I was just waiting for you to show...

I feel warm all over! [8D]

My point is (and always has been) that not ALL of my pilots are nervous, anxious, ignorant buffoons who can't tell a cannon from a cantaloupe, (just some of them!)[:D]

I know - but everybody is a C&CBuf sometimes. After all, it was the same swordfish squadron that nailed Bismark later on.

Please re-read Mike's point as this is very valid, in that these gents *intentionally* by-passed Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and scads of troopships seeking nothing but....CARRIERS!!!!!

"When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd."

Mike does have a good point. In my games, carriers do act that way (hitting the right targets - like carriers) the vast majority of the time. In terms of what you are saying, I think it boils down to 'should those orders (or priorities since the game doesn't allow you to give the orders explicitly) always be perfectly obeyed?' If so, you lose that 'friction' element. If you don't want it, that's good. If you want the flavor of slightly uncontrolled reality in there to simulate WWII, then sometimes things will go askew...

Of course, if it's happening too much, then what is the right amount? I do not know the answer that question, and I'm sure it would be hotly debated anyway.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Yeah, I know, I was just waiting for you to show...

I feel warm all over! [8D]

My point is (and always has been) that not ALL of my pilots are nervous, anxious, ignorant buffoons who can't tell a cannon from a cantaloupe, (just some of them!)[:D]

I know - but everybody is a C&CBuf sometimes. After all, it was the same swordfish squadron that nailed Bismark later on.

Please re-read Mike's point as this is very valid, in that these gents *intentionally* by-passed Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and scads of troopships seeking nothing but....CARRIERS!!!!!

"When Nimitz sent Spruance and Fletcher out to Midway, he sent them looking for Kido Butai, not for the first stray Japanese force that was spotted. That's why they ignored the "main body" spotting on the 3rd."

Mike does have a good point. In my games, carriers do act that way (hitting the right targets - like carriers) the vast majority of the time. In terms of what you are saying, I think it boils down to 'should those orders (or priorities since the game doesn't allow you to give the orders explicitly) always be perfectly obeyed?' If so, you lose that 'friction' element. If you don't want it, that's good. If you want the flavor of slightly uncontrolled reality in there to simulate WWII, then sometimes things will go askew...

Of course, if it's happening too much, then what is the right amount? I do not know the answer that question, and I'm sure it would be hotly debated anyway.

I'm pretty sure it would have to do with the year the war was inr as to the better chance of making good tactical identification of targets, (better training in identification of types of ships for the airmen with more time in war experience involved.)
Permanent party duty stations always had follow up training, (whether we could fight the hangovers to pay attention was another matter), but honestly, at ANY point in the war, a carrier pilot especially should have a darned better chance of knowing a carrier *like the one he just flew off of*, than to go after PT boats and AG type vessels.
If a targeting bonus were just given to carrier pilots, it would be more accurate than the piss weak chances of going after carriers now !
(BTW, Ron does not have proprietary license to the term "piss weak"....)[:D]

[rockmedic109]

Shouldn't the S.S.Minnow be a small AP rather than a small AK? I thought it carried more personel than supplies. Maybe an LCVP would actually be a better designation. But the commanders frustration rating should be in the 90s and the the first officer's hilarity rating should be even higher.