Mischeivious Mars/Mischievious Neptune
 

Like all Olympians, Mars and Neptune are notorious practical jokers and a naval officer dares the wrath of both at once.
We know from history that doctrine invented in peacetime never turns out to be quite right and success in doctrine is simply being less wrong then the foe. There hasn't been a major naval war in more then have a century and "sonar tag" though a useful source of knowlege doesn't provide all the answers-the British for instance recieved a frightful shock at the fate of the Shefeld. They did a lot of work trying to correct the flaw.
But there is still something to wonder-how much of what we think is true?
From the DanWat point of view is there a way to allow for unpredictably flawed doctrine? One can I suppose argue that finding and taking advantage of bugs is that however I doubt that purists would approve. Is there a way to formally program the possibility of flawed doctrine? This might work in a Campaign game where player can for instance can slowly be exposed to "The Lies His Professor at Annapolis Told Him".

That's the story of my DW life... :rotfl:

If you ever find that Mike guy, can you give him my number and ask him to call me?

:/\\x:

Cheers,
David

PS Just kidding Mike... :88)

Really, it depends on what you mean by "doctrine." You could definitely start forming your own opinions on how survivable you thought carriers were, how effective you think SSKs are, etc. Those opinions might have some validity if you are smart about how you design the scenario. That's part of the fun of wargaming. If the scenario is well designed, it can sometimes even have predictive value.

It all, of course, depends on the assumptions you build into your scenario and the database numbers, but it's wargames very much like DW around which real world planners build doctrine and tactics. The conclusions they draw are only as good as the assumptions they build into them.

When I read the title, I thought you were referring to the SAS magazine..:lol:

_____________________________________________
By doctrine I mean "official opinion of a given naval establishment on strategic and tactical matters, used as a basis for training and technological development"

It is true that the conclusions they draw must come from assumptions. I was wondering if they could allow for that. For instance in another place there was a debate on the proprieties of using bugs deliberatly and one player said that if it wouldn't happen in the real world it would be cheating. Well in the first place saying something wouldn't happen especially in war sounds a little hubristic. Saying something is unlikly to happen is one thing. But wouldn't? That is going to far. To take an example
of such things, during the nineteeth century there was one time when a bunch of British were surrounded by Afghans inside a fortress. Suddenly there came an earthquake which broke down the walls and the Afghans charged in and cut them to pieces. Now THAT is weird. And of course no one is saying the Afghans cheated by taking advantage.
Suppose though that the DanWat designer decided to deliberatly place a "bug" there. Fair play, and the need to make the players feel they are operating in an environment that can be rationally deciphered would demand that he tell the players about such, and tell him that though it would probably go thus and so, Mars and Neptune might play their little tricks.
For instance if there was a matter in which professional opinion is in dispute. The designer can engineer the probability proportionatly. If 70% of the navy thinks x, and 30% thinks y the designer can give it 69.5% chance of x, 29% chance of y-with a 1% chance of something else added just to be mean.
In a way it would be a variation of the show truth/hide truth idea.

You mean like this kind of stuff?

http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/Library/Library.aspx

That's not really what's reflected in the doctrine files in DW. Well... I guess in a certain sense it is, but there's a lot of intermediate steps between these kinds of grand strategic/political statements and the kinds of things in the DW files. These kinds of "doctrine" publications are really very abstract. They don't really tell you how to fight a ship or submarine, except in a philosophical sense. Even then, a lot of things in these sorts of publications have to do with leadership philosophies, and historical lessons learned.

How do bugs in DW have anything to do with the assumptions that drive naval doctrines?

That's not really a "bug" though, so much as a random event. You can build random events into a scenario of you'd like. By using dynamic locations, random start boxes, and dynamic groups, you have a surprising amount of flexibility for inserting randomness into scenarios, especially if you're clever. Do you have a specific random event in mind?

You'd really have to be more specific about what you're referring to. There are lots of ways to inject random variables into a DW scenario. Some things you can control and some things you can't. To really answer your question you'd need to be more specific.

I brought up bugs because they are random deviations from what is expected to be normal and their affect on play is analogical to the effect of faulty prewar doctrine.
The type of thing I am talking about is "Oh no the Russians have a torpedo we didn't know about" or "why do are torpedos explode before they are supposed to". Or worse something like this: before world war II the USN assumed they could use active to plot solutions and never need their periscopes. It was found out that they still had to rely on periscopes.

You could certainly think that way about bugs if you'd like. You're perfectly welcome to play unpatched versions. Usually when one plays, "what if?" kinds of games like that, they usually prefer some control over the fact but yeah, you could do it. Why not? Go for it. Tell us how it turns out.

__________________________________________________ __
I am not experienced enough to tell how it turns out yet of course-and I probably couldn't identify a bug beyond the most obvious(akula turns into a dragon and breaths fire). But it is a nice way to think of it anyway.

I don't want to be misunderstood-as it is obvious that many players consider that unethical I would not use that to justify exploiting a bug in a multiplayer game, unless it was known to all that it was permitted under that games rules.