Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?

[John Williams <williams@morinda.com>]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Bill Bauer wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 William.VanDuin@ach.com.au wrote:
> 
> > Becomes predictable then though.  I like an element of risk.  Perhaps a random
> > advantage to the defender with average distribution around your figure but with
> > a chance of the attacker getting the advantage occassionally and at times having
> > no chance.  Ie normal distribution bell curve
> 
>   Random elements are a big part of tactical combat. Tactical surprise,
> "fog of war", communications difficulties, a river in the way, a flat
> tire, whatever... all of these can aggregate to create a large advantage.
>   Strategic combat, OTOH, is usually pretty predictable - there is not a
> great deal of random actors (although there are a few) that will allow a
> brigade to hold off a corps... Tactical combat is about defeating the
> enemy. Strategic combat is about bullets, beans, and bodies.
>   This is what Hasbro had in mind about the 3-2 dice "advantage". Rich,
> can you mathematically figure out the bell curve differential between the
> 3 dice and 2 dice runs? Hasbro can not claim to own a mathematical
> relationship...

My opinion is that if we give the largest force an advantage, it will
create unpredictability.  Will the defender combine his forces at the last
minute?  Or I may be surrounded by a superior force, but it is in several
smaller groups, so I attack one of them rather than waiting for him to
attack me with them all at once -- but he foresees this ploy and instead
of attacking me head on, he just reenforces his smallest group -- but I
think he will do that so I attack the second smallest group -- etc, etc.

~ John Williams