Re: data saturation on in future combat Was:rules "inspiration"

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Los wrote:
> While we agree on most things, let me stress one point:
> > I think this can be addressed as a function of crew quality. The
short
> > answer to your question is yes, most of the time you do.
>
> *Always*. Not most of the time. Not even 99% of the time. Always.
> *Most optimal*. Not pretty good choice. Not one of many nearly equals.
> Most optimal.
>

Sorry but your original post was at work and I'm at home now so I'm
missing
something.  Are you saying that crews ALWAYs chhose the right traget? I
thought
you were saying the exact opposite?

>
> Out of an arbitrarily high number of choices.
>
> One could argue that sophisticated battle computer could evaluate
threats,
> highlight the best choices etc. -- but then we really need to think:
If
> your systems are this good, what the heck do you need a human crew
for?
>

I agree...

> While these factors are admittedly *not* always the same, *I* think it
is
> preferably to retain those onboard unknowns in place of the
battlefield
> ones, instead of allowing players to stop action, pre-determine
onboard
> unknowns and then add extra rules to simulate the battlefield ones.

I agree 100%. I hate when I guy measures everything oiutto teh
umpteempth degree
and then takes an hour to make his move. War is not nor will ever be
about a
"sure thing". Neither should a wargame (IMO)

Los.