WORKSHOP: Universal Simulationist Military System

[sp1023]

I don't see what's terribly complicated about adding, subtracting, dividing, multiplying, and inverse powers. If somewhere between a 6th and 8th grader is fully capable of running these computations, then I don't view it as complex. Tedious, yes. Which is why there needs to be a spreadsheet chart. All the factors you listed are included in QJM. To build a system around them that is not QJM is to just arbitrarily make up a system that does not reflect reality because you don't like the system that does. If you want to do that, then you can just make up whatever crap you want and say that it reflects reality--it doesn't, because it isn't based on reality. In fact, although I can't find it, I recall you leveling this very argument against one of my proposals some years ago. But as it stands now, I myself am not particularly interested in substituting my own personal bias for something which is simply constantly biased in a particular way.

The process is not difficult. You have a compilation of OLIs, either for weapons systems or theater units. You stack them up, and identify the other factors, such as training and terrain et al. It crunches the numbers and spits out a result at you. There, you're done. You have to click maybe two to three dozen input cells to identify them, the horror. If that's too complex for other people, that's their own problem--it's not too complex for me, or apparently many other people. We are doing this process so we will know how to get from here to there and what we can actually do with the system.

Unfortuantely, 8th graders at a distinguished High School/Junior cannot perform the abovementioned tasks.

 

[Dachs]

Unfortuantely, 8th graders at a distinguished High School/Junior cannot perform the abovementioned tasks.

Yes, they can. By the time I had entered high school I had the ability to add, subtract, divide, multiply, and use a root function. Unless you're a particularly stupid middle school student you can do the aforementioned things.

 

[sp1023]

No, like the complicated spreadsheets and stuff Symp was talking about. I'm pretty sure everyone can add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc.

 

[Dachs]

No, like the complicated spreadsheets and stuff Symp was talking about. I'm pretty sure everyone can add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc.

Using a spreadsheet has nothing to do with the mathematical knowledge one needs for the basic operations that have been cited. As for spreadsheets: what, you don't know how to use Excel? That's kind of depressing.

 

[Symphony D.]

No, like the complicated spreadsheets and stuff Symp was talking about.

Pointing and clicking is beyond your grasp, eh? I guess we're witnessing some kind of miracle here then.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't see what's terribly complicated about adding, subtracting, dividing, multiplying, and inverse powers. If somewhere between a 6th and 8th grader is fully capable of running these computations, then I don't view it as complex. Tedious, yes. Which is why there needs to be a spreadsheet chart. All the factors you listed are included in QJM. To build a system around them that is not QJM is to just arbitrarily make up a system that does not reflect reality because you don't like the system that does. If you want to do that, then you can just make up whatever crap you want and say that it reflects reality--it doesn't, because it isn't based on reality. In fact, although I can't find it, I recall you leveling this very argument against one of my proposals some years ago. But as it stands now, I myself am not particularly interested in substituting my own personal bias for something which is simply constantly biased in a particular way.

The process is not difficult. You have a compilation of OLIs, either for weapons systems or theater units. You stack them up, and identify the other factors, such as training and terrain et al. It crunches the numbers and spits out a result at you. There, you're done. You have to click maybe two to three dozen input cells to identify them, the horror. If that's too complex for other people, that's their own problem--it's not too complex for me, or apparently many other people. We are doing this process so we will know how to get from here to there and what we can actually do with the system.

Don't get me wrong, I do applaud your effort to unearth this work and bring it to NESing. Where I think the effort (the book, not yours) breaks down is in its over quantification of what has a significant impact in a battle while ignoring non quantifiable events except after the fact. In his example of Austerlitz you get two pretty equal scores, but in order to tilt the balance to the French he adds 40,000 troops for Napoleon being there, adds for the French surprise, and again for the superiority of the French troops. Voila, the system shows the French to have the advantage. Duh. I would have thought that he could have accounted for all of those (except perhaps Napoleon himself) in his other variables and not used them as fudge factors. For Waterloo he again seems to fudge the numbers at the end to make sure that he gets the outcome he wants. I admit, that I am somewhat handicapped by not having the book to actually look through and am relying on the few pages you posted.

To be useful in NESing, I think that a system has to be somewhat predictive and not one that fixes things after the fact to reflect actual results.

I wonder how he would score battles like: Trebbia, Cannae, Marengo, Friedland, Auerstadt, or even Borodino?

I understand how all the detail provided can support a modern warfare model and if that is the goal, then I will withdraw any negative comments. But all the calculations does little to enhance resolving a battle between French line infrantry in 1805 and their Austrian counterparts. If you want standards for different types of units throughout history, then I suggest that you go to the miniatures gamesfolks. They have been creating armies to fight on table tops for a very long time. They have done lots of research just so they can have Cartheginians fight either Scipio or Julius Caesar, or for that matter Egyptians. Here is a link to a page from a Napoleonic rule set that gives combat values for the French. The second link is for Austrians.

http://tabletoptalk.com/PDFs/grandarmy/french_org.pdf

http://tabletoptalk.com/PDFs/grandarmy/austrian_org.pdf

Begin with the end in mind. What do you want the outcome of this thread to be? Post that and maybe we can get there.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Q-01. Does the QJM reflect pre-Napoleonic Combat to any degree of accuracy?
A-01. OLIs for pre-Napoleonic weapons are readily calculable (and have been), and the variables of combat put forth by HERO and Dupuy are otherwise unchanged. It follows that QJM would hold for earlier battles as a result, but the only way to be sure is to run QJMA for selected battles and see for sure--this is one of the objectives necessary to ensure that the system is truly "universal."

Q-02. How is QJM capable of being integrated into a NES?
A-02. OLIs are primarily calculated weapons-system by weapons-system, and that option remains available for its implementation. However, to present a less complex alternative, there exists the possibility of calculating the sum value of a Force to enable the usage of prepackaged units. Thought and inquiry on the latter are necessary, and both must be studied for optimal implementation into an Excel system. In addition, attributions such as generalship and training, ordinarily derived after the fact in QJMA, may be implemented from the start in a NES-QJM. The calibration of scales used for these must be carefully studied.

I'm just slow on the uptake and equally arrogant about pushing my own agenda. I did miss the bolded text on my first read through.

I did list some battles for you. Obvious choices from ancient times include Alexander's: Gaugamela, Granicus and Issus, but "traditional" strengths will get in the way of any real results. I recommend Hans Delbruck "History of the Art of War: Antiquity" as an excellent source of revisionist 19th C research. It covers the major battles from marathon through Pharsalus. If you are interested in any of those, I can post his estimates of strengths.

But if you want to establish some comparison between armies, I would look the the rules sets for miniatures as an excellent starting point.

 

[Dachs]

Gaugamela, Granikos, and Issos are actually bad choices because of the massive inaccuracies on troop counts and types. Estimates of the size of the army of Dareios at Gaugamela have ranged anywhere from 100,000 to nearly a million. Delbruck is also not good for ancient history nuts and bolts because he doesn't take into account a lot of the more recent scholarship on most classical history, of which there has been a good deal, especially since 1950.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Gaugamela, Granikos, and Issos are actually bad choices because of the massive inaccuracies on troop counts and types. Estimates of the size of the army of Dareios at Gaugamela have ranged anywhere from 100,000 to nearly a million.

Which is why I like Delbruck. At least he makes an effort to arrive at more realistic numbers.

Delbruck is also not good for ancient history nuts and bolts because he doesn't take into account a lot of the more recent scholarship on most classical history, of which there has been a good deal, especially since 1950.

Since M. Delbruck died in 1929 he had little access to the work since 1950. Please point me to a better source on battle strengths for any one of the battles Delbruck discusses. I would like to compare them.

 

[Dachs]

Which is why I like Delbruck. At least he makes an effort to arrive at more realistic numbers.

Unless I'm horribly wrong, Delbruck quotes less than 60,000 men for the Persians at Gaugamela. This is the same army that had enough untrained manpower to level the battlefield prior to the engagement to make it smoother sailing for the chariots? I have a very hard time believing that with the breathing space given by Alexandros' side trip into Phoenike and Aigyptos, that with all Iran and Mesopotamia under his control still, that Dareios could not muster more than 60,000 men to stand against the Makedonians.

Since M. Delbruck died in 1929 he had little access to the work since 1950.

Yeah, that'd be the point.

Please point me to a better source on battle strengths for any one of the battles Delbruck discusses. I would like to compare them.

Warry's Warfare in the Classical World and Green's Alexander to Actium estimate around 90,000 to 100,000 men for the Achaemenids at Gaugamela.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Unless I'm horribly wrong, Delbruck quotes less than 60,000 men for the Persians at Gaugamela. This is the same army that had enough untrained manpower to level the battlefield prior to the engagement to make it smoother sailing for the chariots? I have a very hard time believing that with the breathing space given by Alexandros' side trip into Phoenike and Aigyptos, that with all Iran and Mesopotamia under his control still, that Dareios could not muster more than 60,000 men to stand against the Makedonians.

Yeah, that'd be the point.

Warry's Warfare in the Classical World and Green's Alexander to Actium estimate around 90,000 to 100,000 men for the Achaemenids at Gaugamela.

Thank you, i will seek them out.

 

[Dachs]

Thank you, i will seek them out.

No prob. The issue with revisionist history is that, while being a good check on excesses, it can go too far. The million man army quoted by Arrianus, Diodoros, and Plutarchus is improbable at best, I agree. In any event, that's the main issue with the campaigns of Alexandros: there are so many conflicting statements about the truthiness of numbers that I would find it problematic to discuss the outcomes of engagements based on said numbers. We could try mining the Second Punic War, though. Polybios has a good reputation for factual accuracy.

 

[Amon Savag]

Right now, as I have stated, I would like a list of pre-Napoleonic and ideally pre-Gunpowder battles to be pieced together to ensure the system accurately describes such warfare, so its full utility may be known, and ideas on the precise size and fashion of pre-packaged units. From there, we can proceed to translate this model into two (raw and prepackaged) Excel systems, and then construct a coherent military structure around them. However, first we have to do the two things to which I have received no replies whatsoever.

Battle of Dorylaeum where the first professional crusade about met it's end like the rabble that came before them. At best, we've got 3,000 knights and 12,000 infantry vs. 25,000-30,000 turkish cavalry. I wonder how many men homeboy would add to the battlefield due to Bohemund of Taranto.

The crusader army was divided into three seperate sections, one led by Bohemund of Taranto, one by Godfrey of Toulouse, and one by Bishop Adhemar of Monteil. Bohemund's group was attacked, and for half the day Bohemund held off the enemy untill godfrey arrived with reinforcements. Even then, it was pretty much certain defeat for the crusaders. Only untill Adhemar's army maneuvered completely around the enemy did the turks morale bust and they started scattering in all directions.

It'd be interesting to see what "should" have happened, using your system. This has been one of my all-time favorite battles to study. Another would be Baldwin IV vs. Saladin at the battle of montgisard. Where the 16 year old king made his charge at just the right time to break the egyptian army's morale and send them packing. The numbers for that battle is something like 500 cav, and a few thousand men for Baldwin IV, around 30k egyptians for Saladin.

 

[flyingchicken]

Q-01. Does the QJM reflect pre-Napoleonic Combat to any degree of accuracy?
A-01. OLIs for pre-Napoleonic weapons are readily calculable (and have been), and the variables of combat put forth by HERO and Dupuy are otherwise unchanged. It follows that QJM would hold for earlier battles as a result, but the only way to be sure is to run QJMA for selected battles and see for sure--this is one of the objectives necessary to ensure that the system is truly "universal."

It'd be interesting to see what "should" have happened, using your system. This has been one of my all-time favorite battles to study. Another would be Baldwin IV vs. Saladin at the battle of montgisard. Where the 16 year old king made his charge at just the right time to break the egyptian army's morale and send them packing. The numbers for that battle is something like 500 cav, and a few thousand men for Baldwin IV, around 30k egyptians for Saladin.

If you have precise statistics relevant to the non-arbitrary parts of QJMA on what happened, then we can get crackin'!

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Dachs]

One of the local handy amateurs I referenced was in fact you, so why don't you get on that?

Althisting using an alternate outcome of one of the battles that doesn't really work with QJM(A) and studying for a monster Arabic exam are slightly higher on my priority list. However, hopefully this helps somewhat (look at the bottom of the page; Book III concerns the entirety of the war from its inception and roots through the first battles of 218-6 BC(E)), for whoever wishes to run this, unless it doesn't happen in the next two days, in which case I'll take over.

 

[carmen510]

Spreadsheets just hurt my eyes and I feel they are ugly, so I don't use them.

Although I think the formula is really good, couldn't you just use your own judgment for determining battle outcomes?

 

[Dachs]

Although I think the formula is really good, couldn't you just use your own judgment for determining battle outcomes?

You are biased. Math isn't.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.