Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeaQueen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jason taylor
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? Is there a way to formally program the possibility of flawed doctrine?
|
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. |
_____________________________________________
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.