Re: OT: WRG 1925-50

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> 
> > Take Matilda IIs vs Pz Is, and you will do well. Take them vs Pz
IIs,
> > you'll do somewhat less well, as the 20mm incendiary ammunition can
KO a
> > Matilda II (as a Sherman can KO a Tiger... not likely!). Pz IIIs
with
> > 37mm are nearly useless.
> 
> As I see it, the problem with the WRG  rules is that something based
on
> single 1d6 rolls will err in one of two ways: Chances significantly
> less than 15% are either completely ignored, or elevated unjustly to
the
> 1/6 status.

Yes and no.
The REAL problem is that the data is really fuzzy.

What the heck does that mean? Well, it means that after all the looking
up of charts, tables, applying modifiers etc etc we get a chance of
(say) 25%. But in actuality, the chance could be anywhere from 3-60%.
There's one heck of a deviation.

Making %age rolls etc just "adds an air of verisimilitude to an
otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative".   The fact is, that many of
the minor modifiers are drowned out in the noise of what's NOT
simulated.

By only using D6s, the precision of the random-numbers and the accuracy
of the chances are well-matched. If we'd just tossed coins, we wouldn't
have this (too little precision). If we'd used D20s, we also wouldn't
have this (too much precision).

Probably a D8 would have been a better match, but a D10 would be too
fine-grained.

As far as I can see, it's only probabilities of <5% that were ignored: 1
in 6 ( 16.66%) is mapped to anywhere between 5-25%.
-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au  o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale