Axioms of Improbability for Wargaming

[MajorH]

Many wargamers feel that the laws of probability are subject to paranormal modifiers at critical gaming moments. This thread provides a place for folks to post their experience based theories.

Holdridge's Axiom Of Criticality: The likelihood of the real world occurrence of an improbable unfavorable event increases proportionally to a wargamer's need that the event not happen. Corollary: The likelihood of the real world occurrence of a probable favorable event decreases proportionally to a wargamer's need for the event to happen.

 

[Iron Mike USMC]

Many wargamers feel that the laws of probability are subject to paranormal modifiers at critical gaming moments. This thread provides a place for folks to post their experience based theories.

Holdridge's Axiom Of Criticality: The likelihood of the real world occurrence of an improbable unfavorable event increases proportionally to a wargamer's need that the event not happen. Corollary: The likelihood of the real world occurrence of a probable favorable event decreases proportionally to a wargamer's need for the event to happen.

Not to minimize the nature of the above, but it sounds strangely similar to "Murphy's Law".

It makes a lot of sense. Dice rolls, not matter how they are set up to meet the historical and statistical occurences, cannot possibly take into account unforseen contingencies that may or may not happen at any given moment.

Like in the real world: at any given moment, in any given circumstance, should an event recur, it will not be exactly the same way twice.

 

[Sniper]

Gents,

One of the biggest reason I changed from board wargames to computer wargames was to escape those pesky dice and all the combat tables. I have recently started playing a minatures game called 'Warhammer' with my 9 and 12 year old boys as it is the only game I can get them to play that teaches some semblence of tactical thinking. With it came the return of those pesky dice and all those tables.

We all understand that dice are dice and they behave according to the laws of probability. That being said, ones perception of dice behavior may seem to violate said laws. This is probably because when dice foul things up at a noncritical time, the event goes unnoticed or the 'damage' can be easily repaired while when dice foul things up at a critical moment, that event tends to hang in ones mind for the duration of the game. It can lead to the perception that the dice are 'messing with me'. On the other hand, when the dice roll in ones favor, the idea can germinate that 'this is more like it, this is how it should go'. The fact of the matter is the dice are just following the laws of probability.

Just take a stroll though a casino and listen to some of the conversations that occur...Craps table: 'I just rolled two soft tens in a row, that means my hard ten is next'. Go figure. People have some strange ideas about how probability works.

Another factor that comes into play is that probabilty is just that, a probability. It expresses the likelihood of a specific event occurring. Once the event unfolds, the probability no longer exists, or maybe better put, the probabilty has manifest itsself. The event has occurred and it now is what it is along with all its ramafications.

But all things considered, Holdridge's Axiom Of Criticality might well operate within the laws of probability :devil:

Randy

 

[Dr Zaius]

It's not that I don't trust dice, but they very often get rolled on the floor or whatever and then people argue about the result. When I play ASL I use a dice tower. Keeps an honest man honest.

When I was on active duty I never worried all that much about these "probabilities" catching up to me as far as the enemy was concerned. But I was a helicopter crewchief and we tend to be either supertitious or paranoid about most things. I was always concerned that an "improbable unfavorable event" was going to occur in the form of a high tension power line. Some call them helicopter catchers.

 

[James Sterrett]

I acquired a solid reputation for extremely bad rolls at critical times - they've been called "Sterrett numbers" by several different game groups. :nuts:

However, while the bad rolls did occur.... they did also drive me to think better. Part of the reason the bad rolls were disaster is that I thought I would tend to plan on an average roll. In fact, I'd be planning on average or better rolls.

As a result, I'd fail to keep asking "what's the worst that can happen?" And when it did, it often hammered me.

Second, by forcing me to wonder about the worst, the bad rolls forced me to think about ensuring that my plans would succeed regardless of what the dice did to me. That mindset, in turn, generates better planning; you haven't planned luck out of the picture, but you're probably adequately compensated for bad luck.

Strangely enough, the better I adhere to these planning maxims intended to minimize the impact of bad die rolls, the fewer of them I seem to have.

Which points the blame for my bad karma right back where it belongs.... Me. :OHNO:

 

[Redwolf]

If you would try to create a harder gaming experience by evaluating random events (= dice rolls) with a bias towards "bad luck" then you would just model different real-worls forces.

For example, if you biased hits then you do nothing else than starting from a worse hit probability and hence from a lower unit quality.

If you biased weather to have the snowstorm always hit when the player marches towards Moscow then you just model worse weather overall.

Non-developers often don't understand that a wargame is largely made up from specifications of probability distributions anyway. "Bad luck", bias and similar things are just modifications to probability distributions and hence are not at all different from choosing a different model in first place.

 

[Dr Zaius]

But we also need to remember that there must be a possibility of these things happening. Otherwise, why even play?

 

[MajorH]

Come on guys. You are not getting into the spirit of this. The objective of the thread is to produce and slap your name on a wargaming axiom that is scientifically unjustifiable and yet seems to ring true.

 

[GCoyote]

Axiom

Come on guys. You are not getting into the spirit of this. The objective of the thread is to produce and slap your name on a wargaming axiom that is scientifically unjustifiable and yet seems to ring true.

Hence, my tag line.

 

[tinjaw]

Tinjaw's Law of Wargaming Data Storage:

"You only save your game when it doesn't matter" and the corollary, "when something goes bad, you haven't saved your game."

 

[Redwolf]

Come on guys. You are not getting into the spirit of this. The objective of the thread is to produce and slap your name on a wargaming axiom that is scientifically unjustifiable and yet seems to ring true.

Well, I bitch about Combat Mission and it's overemphasis on realistically extremely rare screwups all the time, I just do it on the Combat Mission forum

I think my chief bitch about that is that many customer/players cannot put events into any kind of probability frame. If they read an account that [x] happened, then even if they understand it was rare, then "rare" means "only a few times per game", i.e. a 30 minute battle, although the real probability was probably 1/10,000 per small unit clash.

 

[tinjaw]

Come on guys. You are not getting into the spirit of this. The objective of the thread is to produce and slap your name on a wargaming axiom that is scientifically unjustifiable and yet seems to ring true.

I am sorry Major. :cheeky: They just seem to not understand the concept of humor and/or satire. :nuts: Maybe they just haven't had enough to drink. How about we wait a few hours until they get a chance to chime in Down Under.

 

[tinjaw]

Tinjaw's Law of Disappearing Information.

The amount of time the information remains in the status bar to be read is inversely proportional to its importance.

 

[MajorH]

Now we are rolling!

 

[James Sterrett]

Sterrett's Law of Turn Importance

The importance of playing the next turn is inversely proportional to the amount of time remaining to play.

In late-night situations, this frequently leads to playing all night against the percieved deadline of "getting sleep". Those suffering from this condition tend to mutter the word "wummer", a slurred version of "Just one more turn", as they slide off their chairs into a coma.

 

[Sniper]

Erickson's Principle of Opponent Exemption

Erickson's Principle of Opponent Exemption states that Holdridge's Axiom Of Criticality only operates in the first person, therefore your opponent is always exempt and never suffers the effects of Holdridge's Axiom.

James Sterrret has obviously done much research in this area and has provided independent confirmation of Erickson's Principle using Sterrett Numbers.

 

[Hub]

You guys talk funny...

 

[GCoyote]

TacOps Time Dilation

Now we are rolling!

Your forward progress toward the object will slow in proportion to your significant other's reminders that it is almost time to leave.

Related Question: Has TacOps ever been listed as a contibuting cause of death by a coroner? :hush:

 

[MajorH]

Has TacOps ever been listed as a contibuting cause of death by a coroner? :hush:

Not to my knowledge, but users have stated that it contributed to two divorces and one failed college semester.

On the positive side, it has contributed to better paying jobs, more satisfying jobs, military awards, and military promotions for others. :toast: