Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1993 16:31:12 +0000

Gilette Serge <gilette@obsidian.unice.fr> writes:
> > Completly wrong. For example in ASL you perfectly knows where the enemy forces
> > are, so you can move freely as you want until you close the enemy and then
> > prepare for combat. You don't have the fog of war, the doubt, the fear of
> > getting in some trap.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
> I absolutely agree with what your statements, _and_ I stand by mine.
> ASL is far from a perfect simulation, for the above and many other
> reasons.  That doesn't make me "completely wrong."  What I said was that
> ASL is a better simulation than anything _else_ that is available.  I
> stand by that until you give me an example of what is better.  I'm quite
> confident that it doesn't exist.

I think the point being made here David is that *in principle* a computer version
of a game should be better than the board version of the game. The fact that at
present there are no good implementations of board games is somewhat beside the
point! Do you dispute this, or was your answer just question dodging?

Gilette Serge <gilette@obsidian.unice.fr> writes:
> > If you're still not convinced here is _one_ example :
> > Two regular A units an elite B unit and a regular D unit attack in a city
> > one regular C unit and an elite D unit. The result is that the defender
> > is to loose one unit.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
> (Note that you doubled the number of types of units, and also added
> terrain effects, between your last example and this one.  No wonder it
> is more complicated.  Are you more into making rhetorical points than
> being consistent?)

Personally I think he is making a point and your reaction confirms it, namely
that as the number of parameters increases this formula approximation line
gets increasinlgy more shakey by the moment :-)

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
> But, as I said, I know a _lot_ more about the formulas than I did
> before.  One thing that I know is that battles do not necessarily result
> in complete elimination of one side or the other.  Would you call that
> not an important fact?  It sure seems important to me.

A well written set of rules will tell you this information - you don't need
the formulas to know this!

Just one question: when you wrote this last paragraph of yours "But ....
important to me" had you even considered that there was a distinction between
rules and formulas and that the rules might tell you the info you want? I ask
because I have said it maybe five times that there is a distinction between
rules and formulas and yet still find people saying things to which the
answer is "the rules will tell you that without knowing the formulas".

graham

--
Graham Matthews                   Go west, go west
Dept Comp Sci, Univ Edinburgh     Where there's work so I'm told
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk                  California's never cold

References

Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 05 Jul 1993 17:26:30 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gilette@obsidian.unice.fr (Gilette Serge)
Tue, 06 Jul 1993 08:04:56 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Tue, 06 Jul 1993 14:15:51 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gilette@obsidian.unice.fr (Gilette Serge)
Mon, 05 Jul 1993 09:04:28 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 05 Jul 1993 17:26:30 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gilette@obsidian.unice.fr (Gilette Serge)
Tue, 06 Jul 1993 08:04:56 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Tue, 06 Jul 1993 14:15:51 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gilette@obsidian.unice.fr (Gilette Serge)
Mon, 05 Jul 1993 09:04:28 +0000