In a very real sense, L’Estoq’s march is a data point of one, by one group, in one battle. I suppose one could propose a L’Estoq at Eylau rule
You insinuated that we were attempting to discuss “arcane facts” and claimed that no one ever showed how these arcane facts related to real battles. So I gave an example of one that related to the topic at hand: movement rates, and noted how it did have a material impact on the battle’s course of events and outcome.
Please don’t short me by indicating there is only one example supporting my statement and refuting yours simply because I only gave one. You didn’t ask for several…
I’ll touch on this again at the end regarding movement averages.
but I think rolling for variable movement, or regulating time in a wargame by card fall, is as accurate as any method, and probably a better game mechanic, and a better representation of history.
You’ve made that clear but you haven’t provided any specific support for your conclusion. Why is it a better representation of history than… well, there isn’t a than because one hasn’t been specifically proposed, but it would radically strengthen your point to say why such methods are a good representation of history.
Those mechanisms simply state L’Estoq started his travels at this point of the game, and ended up at his destination at a later point- the time is perhaps measured in gross terms by a typical turn length illustrating a given amount of time
Actually all movement mechanics do this, it is in no way specific to card-driven or dice driven or variable turn lengths. All movement mechanics state that L’Estocq moved from X location to Y location at some later point.
It makes the issue moot. It does illustrate that the gamer’s L’Estoq, and his Eylau, may vary, as well it should.
This I don’t follow. There is a presumption that the time it took L’Estocq to move from point X to point Y should vary. I’m questioning if it should.
“Average” when applied to troops on a variable wargame battlefield, is, in itself, an abstraction, and a strong mix of subjective estimation with a bit of fact.
Of course it is an abstraction but it is not necessarily a “strong mix of subjective estimation with a bit of fact,” it is not subjective to say that I travel on average X MPH from point A to point B when driving. How accurate an estimate of my future average travel times will be depends on my sample size. You pointed at this as to my example with L’Estocq at Eylau but earlier in this thread each McLaddie and I have noted a couple examples. The question we’ve each posed is: if we find a whole bunch of examples where in T time under C circumstances a division of troops moved from point A to point B, a known distance of D, then it seems pretty fair to presume that units on the tabletop should move something similar to that average under similar conditions. We’re not talking about something exact, though everyone who objects refers to “exact” and “truth”.
No one has claimed anything about this stuff being an exact science, if I were doing so, I wouldn’t be talking about averages which are by their very nature – as you note – inexact.
In fact 50% variation would be, in my mind, the most likely result-not a surprise.
Why?
