Re: Tomb's Rating System

----- Original Message -----
From: <kaladorn@magma.ca>

> KHR (who so ably notes that my rating is one-dimensional, which was
> no secret) said there were problems in my rankings.

It seems you are not happy with my arguments. Sorry if you don't like
them,
but I don't think I phrased them in an aggressive manner. And
'one-dimensional' was not intended as offensive, just as a statement of
fact.

> Anytime you aggregate a ranking from a diverse collection of weighted
> parameters (formally or not), you introduce all manner of suspect
> points: What are the parameters used/not used, what weightings are
> assigned, how did you arrive at values for the ratings, etc.

Aggregation can be reasonable, but it should be made explicit how it is
composed from the separate factors.

> The rating I gave was in terms of troop quality (meaning the quality
> of individual soldiers and leaders, as an average). This encompasses
> training, experience in small and large unit conflict (as it pertains
> to how well leaders handle these formations), technology (as it
> pertains to how well they train), logistics and support (as it
> pertains to how good their training is - how often, how real, etc),
> how often then conduct excercises (as it speaks to training), etc.

Maybe it's a matter of wording. To my mind 'troop quality' is,
primarily,
such non-material virtues as trining, skill, discipline, courage,
leadership
etc. The aggregate you describe I would call 'small unit combat power'
which
is a function of my 'troop quality' and equipment/logistics.

> It wasn't speaking directly to combat power, just to the quality of
> the average soldier.

If you include logistics, support, technology etc.,  your definition
above
sounds an awful lot like 'Combat power'

> And a 2nd or 3rd rate power may not have been
> that far behind a first rate power. The gradations and the scale of
> their differentiation was never defined, though I didn't think of it
> as terrribly large.

Lack of definition was a big part of the problem I saw with your list.

> But I'd suggest, for interest, a larger write-in vote like the one
> Beth did for the fleets. But the trick would be in clearly defining
> categories that made sense and assigning them weighting wrt to the
> overall ranking tiers.

Not a bad idea.

> Such an aggregate rating could produce
> subratings like : average troop quality, average officer quality,
> average NCO quality, national combat power, force projection
> rankings, etc.
>
> I'd suggest the following areas to rate (by nation) (leaving the
> discussions of weighting until later):
>
[snip]
> That's a first cut at a more detailed assessment.

You have written up a pretty ambitious list. How many people do you
think
would answer that for any number of canon nations ? I certainyl know I
wouldn't have the time and patience to do it.

How about a more restricted poll, directly linked to game parameters ?
E.g.what kind of small-arms/vehicle propulsion technology , fire-control
level..., what atre typical unit and leadership ratings.

Greetings