sjost1@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Steven J. Owens) (04/03/89)
From: Steven J. Owens <sjost1@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> Hi out there in Netland... I have a request for any military-science types. Is there any good method for simulating a battle simply, without going through everything at a tactical level, but giving each side more options and detail than simply "1000 men on side A versus 100 men on side B, side B loses"? I've heard that simulations are used to teach officers strategy, what kinds of "general" rules are used in this? The idea is to give the "commander" of each side more influence on the outcome of the battle without bogging him/her down in working out details. The ideal I'd go for would be a single "pass" system where each commander picks a set of variables and then the battle is resolved. Also, some sort of variable depending upon what kinds of goals each side has would be good. Things like, are you defending a position to A) HOLD the position, B) DENY the enemy passage through that position, C) DAMAGE the enemy as much as possible using that position as fortification. Some way to take conditions on the "battlefield" into account would be nice. The perfect solution to this would be some sort of mult-dimensional array with each dimension representing either a battlefield condition, a goal, a strategy, etc.... and then to resolve the battle you cross-ref all of the dimensions and arrive at an answer that gives both statistics (X number of men on side A killed) and results in plain english (Side A driven back from the defensive position of side B). Naturally that's only a pipedream, but how close to that can I get? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Steven J. Owens | SJOST1@PITTVMS | SCRATCH@PITTVMS | (via bitnet) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "...'fire' does not matter, 'earth' and 'air' and 'water' do not matter. 'I' do not matter. No word matters. But man forgets reality and remembers words. The more words he remembers, the cleverer do his fellows esteem him. He looks upon the great transformations of the world, but he does not see them as they were seen when man looked upon reality for the first time. Their names come to his lips and he smiles as he tastes them, thinking he knows them in the naming." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - Siddartha, _Lord_of_Light_ by Roger Zelazny =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rshu@ads.com (Richard Shu) (04/05/89)
From: Richard Shu <rshu@ads.com> In article <5332@cbnews.ATT.COM> Steven J. Owens writes: >Is there any good method for simulating a battle simply, without going >through everything at a tactical level, but giving each side more options >and detail than simply "1000 men on side A versus 100 men on side B, >side B loses"? If you include mathematical models in your definition of simulation, you should look at a posting I've submitted about mathematical combat models. >The perfect solution to this would be some sort of mult-dimensional >array with each dimension representing either a battlefield condition, a >goal, a strategy, etc.... and then to resolve the battle you cross-ref >all of the dimensions and arrive at an answer that gives both statistics >(X number of men on side A killed) and results in plain english (Side A >driven back from the defensive position of side B). >Naturally that's only a pipedream, but how close to that can I get? You should look at COL Trevor Dupuy's book: @book{QJM, key = "dupuy85", title = "Numbers, Predictions \& War", author = "Dupuy, T.", publisher = "HERO Books", address = "Fairfax VA", Year = "1985"} He has developed a set of equations based on a historical database of combats. I think that's what you want. Read it and then let me know what you think. Is it a pipedream to base predictions of combat results on historical data? Rich Question: Is there any relationship between General William E. Dupuy (the first TRADOC commander) and COL Trevor N. Dupuy? I assume not but it would be curious if there were. [mod.note: Col. Dupuy co-authored "The Encyclopedia of Military History" with another Dupuy, his father, I believe. I'll try to check at home tonight to be sure. Also, I believe T.N. Dupuy has another book, "Understanding War" on a similar topic. - Bill ]
maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) (04/05/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ (George W. Herbert) In article <5332@cbnews.ATT.COM> sjost1@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Steven J. Owens) writes: >The perfect solution to this would be some sort of mult-dimensional >array with each dimension representing either a battlefield condition, a >goal, a strategy, etc.... and then to resolve the battle you cross-ref >all of the dimensions and arrive at an answer that gives both statistics >(X number of men on side A killed) and results in plain english (Side A >driven back from the defensive position of side B). If it were that simple, WWIII would have been reduced to a sheet of paper handed out at platoon-commander level with instructions. The problem is that random conditions (not really random, but...) result in random outcomes: the way conditions interact is variable, the conditions are usually badly understoo and the results best predicted by using a D6. [oversimplification again] george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu