16/11/2018 at 15:40 #103926
Not Connard SageParticipant
So any flawed model that ‘works’ is a good model, because it…works? Even though, or perhaps because, it employs spurious data?
Blimey. I thought maths was hard, this logic business is even harder 🙁
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."16/11/2018 at 16:27 #103932
As another off topic (sort of) aside – how come you lot can chunter on about ‘program’ v ‘programme’ for hours and I get the Joyce Grenfell rebuke of ‘Are we still discussing gaming?’ from Mike within 6 minutes when I mention the redundant nature of ‘going forward’? George. Don’t do that. And yes it has been niggling. Off to ragesulk.
Sorry Guy. Only just checked in on this topic..16/11/2018 at 18:38 #103936
Don’t worry – just having a whinge going forward.17/11/2018 at 09:25 #103958
One shouldn’t assign magical properties to Lanchester’s law. As explained before, the only working assumptions are that you have 2 numbers (force strengths), which decrease over time proportional to the strength of the enemy at that point in time. Working out the math then gives you the square law. That’s it, nothing more, nothing less.
Whether this is a viable model for modeling a lengthy combat between 2 forces only means you discuss the starting assumptions. But the square law model could as well be applied to a situation in economics, or a situation in a sports game, or how you want to divide the chores in the household, anything really, as long as you think that having 2 numbers that decrease over time proportional to each other is a working model for whatever you want to model 😉
Tiny Tin Men Blog: http://snv-ttm.blogspot.com/
Wargaming Mechanics Blog: http://wargaming-mechanics.blogspot.com/
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.