--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@h...> wrote:
> OK, Mark, What's your beleif?
My belief is that the naval combat algorithm cannot be deduced from
the rulebook. My efforts to deduce it by starting with the army
algorithm and backing out the elements the rulebook says are not
included (e.g. troop training, weapons and armor, troop terrain
modifiers, nation terrain modifiers) have not yielded consistently
reliable predictions.
For all I know you have found the holy grail of naval combat, but if
you have done so you have done it empirically and not by deduction.
I'd be more confident in your claims if you answered my questions
about the details.
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@h...> wrote:
Very well Mark. Try this ((C + M + R + TVT/4) (Strength) +
artifacts + and
- spells). Use it in your next four naval battles and see if it
is close.
Command - I know mine; I can place the opponent's within a decile.
Morale - I know mine; I can guess at my opponent's but not with any
certainty.
Relations - I know mine; I can make a tolerably good guess about my
opponent's, but how do I express it numerically under your system?
Hated = 1.25? does that mean a 40 command rank gets expressed as .4?
Tactics vs. tactics - What modifiers do you use here? They are not in
the rulebook.
Thank you for Sharing your Deduction of Naval combat. If this equasion
has proved as accurate as you indicate it should prove valuble to anyone
that wants to use it.
Ovatha Easterling wrote:
···
Very well Mark. Try this ((C + M + R + TVT/4) (Strength) + artifacts + and
- spells). Use it in your next four naval battles and see if it is close.
>From: "taurnil" <taurnil@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Rulebook--Naval Combat
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:32:40 -0000
>
>--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@h...> wrote:
> > OK, Mark, What's your beleif?
>
>My belief is that the naval combat algorithm cannot be deduced from
>the rulebook. My efforts to deduce it by starting with the army
>algorithm and backing out the elements the rulebook says are not
>included (e.g. troop training, weapons and armor, troop terrain
>modifiers, nation terrain modifiers) have not yielded consistently
>reliable predictions.
>
>For all I know you have found the holy grail of naval combat, but if
>you have done so you have done it empirically and not by deduction.
>
>I'd be more confident in your claims if you answered my questions
>about the details.
>
>Mark
>
The only reason I have never bothered with working out Naval Combat
algorithms is that every naval battle I have been involved in both sides
would clearly outclass the defence of each side and destroy each other.
