Use of OLI/QJM in wargame design

[MadDog]

Is anyone here familiar with OLI/QJm from the Dupuy Institute, and more importantly, how to use it with wargame design ?

thanks,

Mad Dog

[papagolfwhiskey]

I'm not sure how much help I can be.

I've read two of Col. Dupuy's books on QJM. I don't think it's a coincidence that the first book came out right around the time that there was an explosion in the publication of cardboard chit and hexmap games. But using QJM to design a game? the best I could offer you is the conjectures of a Novice.

[MadDog]

Well, I have been trying to extract those elements that I can actually use. For example, I calculate the OLI values for the weapons and vehicles and I have values for the battalions and regiments of a division.

I just found some oddities in the OLI system and tried asking in the Dupuy Institute forums, but those are mostly dead.

Since you are familiar, did you notice that there is no vehicular maintenance factor ? For example, a King Tiger is relieable as a Sherman in the system. I think this is a big gap.

Generally, I was wondering if anyone else has tried this before.

thanks,

Mad Dog

[MadDog]

Also, I am looking for anyone elses tables of OLI values if anyone has them.

thanks,

Mad Dog

[papagolfwhiskey]

Well, I have been trying to extract those elements that I can actually use. For example, I calculate the OLI values for the weapons and vehicles and I have values for the battalions and regiments of a division.

I just found some oddities in the OLI system and tried asking in the Dupuy Institute forums, but those are mostly dead.

Since you are familiar, did you notice that there is no vehicular maintenance factor ? For example, a King Tiger is relieable as a Sherman in the system. I think this is a big gap.

Generally, I was wondering if anyone else has tried this before.

thanks,

Mad Dog

Er... no I didn't but. .. I suspect it ended up getting lumped in under 'national x-factors': Dupuy's curve fitting fudge number.

off hand. (mind you it's been about 4 years since I read either book. and I only really read each once: Library loans.) - I can't recall logistics, previous battles or any other calculations or assesments for call it: previous battle erosion. or length of time in the field.

The above is something you think he would have considered since he also used OLI/QJM to analize the American Civil War and the ability (or rather inability) of the confederate infrastructure to support it's armies in the field was a major factor in their losses and eventual defeat.

If you like, just because otherwise it seems like you're hearing crickets chirping on this subject, I'll see if I can beg/buy/or borrow one or more of those books and try and refresh my memory. I don't have any OLI charts of my own but one of my relative's is an 'old school' minatures gamer whose group designed their own 'homebrew' version of MicroArmour rules. He might have some insights on game design and/or be familier with OLI/QJM.

sorry for such a pathetic offering. but I'll do at least the above just becuase it's interesting.

[MadDog]

I would wager vehicle reliability is separate from the CEV given to the Germans. Weapons have reliability, but not vehicles.

If you arent really familiar with it, its not something I would just review on a lark. it was a real pain in the ass to figure out what I needed from the book. I think I have extracted most of the useful info, but there are still bits that are odd. In fact I have taken it upon myself to correct what I see as errors (a bit presumptuous of myself), such as Targets Per Strike or the accuracy given to mortars.

What did you use OLI for ?

Mad Dog

[papagolfwhiskey]

I didn't.

My relative -might- have. I'll have to ask him. he's about ten years my elder and he and his circle of gamer friends redesigned their own 'homebrew' version of what was then a popular miniatures ruleset. I don't know if they used Dupuy's work to assist with their modications but at least he's got some casual wargame design experience. That's more than I have, especially these days when, mostly, I just play the games.

I read the book, and a few other modeling/strategy games books. (plus I think patton's memoires) on a lark becuase a friend who was re-addicting me to the hobby happened to have them on inter-library loan. I found it interesting reading and it provided insight into a few things but... I can't say that I really delved into as you have. I hope you'll forgive me for being a dillitente who appears to be just wasting your time.

[MadDog]

Finding someone who has actually read the book is hardly a waste of time.

I think the whole concept is very interesting. I would love to get my hands on the successor to OLI - TDNM, but that costs $13,000 (minimum).

Mad Dog

[Rich]

I just found some oddities in the OLI system and tried asking in the Dupuy Institute forums, but those are mostly dead.

Sorry, we aren't "dead", in fact, we're rather too busy to be a corpse. I saw your posts, but neither I nor Chris (who would actually give you the better answer) have had the time to respond.

Since you are familiar, did you notice that there is no vehicular maintenance factor ? For example, a King Tiger is relieable as a Sherman in the system. I think this is a big gap.

A logistical sub-model, including additional maintenance factors other than the weapons reliability, as long been under consideration. But there is this little matter of getting paid for work we do...

I'll try to get back to your questions when I can, but no gaurantees I'm afraid.

[Rich]

Er... no I didn't but. .. I suspect it ended up getting lumped in under 'national x-factors': Dupuy's curve fitting fudge number.

CEV is not a "curve fitting fudge factor" since the same phenomena can be demonstrated without using OLI's or the QJM/TNDM methodology. Or by looking at the interminable numbers of threads about who was "elite" or not. Combat effectiveness value is an average measure of relative capability that must be assumed to include all those things like training and cohesiveness that effect it.

off hand. (mind you it's been about 4 years since I read either book. and I only really read each once: Library loans.) - I can't recall logistics, previous battles or any other calculations or assesments for call it: previous battle erosion. or length of time in the field.

Logistical factors are not really counted, except in the assumptions related to AFV effectiveness based upon how long they can maneuver and fight before having to rearm and refuel - similar factors are included for aircraft. We have also long considered modifiying the artillery OLI to account for doctrinal logistical factors affecting ammunition supply and rates of fire, but have had no funding to do so. Given that the US military spends billions on simulations every year, whereas the QJM/TNDM's entire development budget has probably been something under a million, you may get some idea of the problem there. OTOH, given that the QJM/TNDM gives consistently reliable results that have proven to be more accurate than the gold-plated government simulations...

The above is something you think he would have considered since he also used OLI/QJM to analize the American Civil War and the ability (or rather inability) of the confederate infrastructure to support it's armies in the field was a major factor in their losses and eventual defeat.

Er, he did, at least as far as the "previous battle erosion" bit goes - it's included as a degradation factor based on previous days in battle, which can be recovered by be "out of battle". But I'm not sure what "length of time in the field" might measure and why?

[MadDog]

Sorry, we aren't "dead", in fact, we're rather too busy to be a corpse. I saw your posts, but neither I nor Chris (who would actually give you the better answer) have had the time to respond.

Well, how about "currently experiencing very little traffic" ? : )

A logistical sub-model, including additional maintenance factors other than the weapons reliability, as long been under consideration. But there is this little matter of getting paid for work we do...

I'll try to get back to your questions when I can, but no gaurantees I'm afraid.

Well, in theory, a vehicular modifier should be simple. A M4 sherman would rate high - perhapts as a baseline, and other vehicles would have to be judged against it. Now, granted, for most vehicles you wouldnt have hard data, but for such vehicles as Tigers, King Tigers, JagdTigers etc, you could get a good idea.

Is there not much traffic because TDNM is the current model ?

Since I have your ear for a moment: TDNM (TNDM ?) is the evolution of QJM, right ? Now from reading the DuPuy website, it appears the only way to get TDNM is for a minimum of $13,000 ? Not that I am saying it isnt worth it, but that does put it out of reach for most people. I dont suppose you have a hobbyist-no-support version ?

thanks,

Mad Dog

[Rich]

Well, in theory, a vehicular modifier should be simple. A M4 sherman would rate high - perhapts as a baseline, and other vehicles would have to be judged against it. Now, granted, for most vehicles you wouldnt have hard data, but for such vehicles as Tigers, King Tigers, JagdTigers etc, you could get a good idea.

In theory? Simple? An M4 would rate "high"? How high is high? What "baseline"? Those "simple" things are like asking how long is a piece of rope (the correct answer BTW, is "long enough to hang you with ).

Seriously, determining those things is a lot of work...and I have an expensive girlfriend. But if you want to support me while i find out...

Is there not much traffic because TDNM is the current model ?

I think there is not much traffic because we don't suffer fools gladly? And also because when serious questions - like yours - are asked, we often don't have the time now to answer them as we should.

{quote]Since I have your ear for a moment: TDNM (TNDM ?) is the evolution of QJM, right ? Now from reading the DuPuy website, it appears the only way to get TDNM is for a minimum of $13,000 ? Not that I am saying it isnt worth it, but that does put it out of reach for most people. I dont suppose you have a hobbyist-no-support version ?
[/quote]

"TNDM" and "Dupuy". Tactical Numerical Deterministic Model (yes, Trevor did have a thing for using his initials, Trevor Nevitt Dupuy" in things) and no capitol "P" please.

Actually, we can't sell iot for $13,000 any more, it's more like $83,000, otherwise it isn't worth it. The "hobbyist-no-support" version is Numbers, Predictions, and War I'm afraid. Plus Attrition and a few other titles. The things is of course, it isn't a wargame, it's a model, which is a slightly different thing.

[MadDog]

In theory? Simple? An M4 would rate "high"? How high is high? What "baseline"? Those "simple" things are like asking how long is a piece of rope (the correct answer BTW, is "long enough to hang you with ).

Seriously, determining those things is a lot of work...and I have an expensive girlfriend. But if you want to support me while i find out...

I would propose that you use the baseline value of what the expected running rate was. For example, if an M4 battalion was expected to have 95% running from a purely mechanical perspective, then use a 0.95 multiplicative factor. If a Tiger Bn was expected to only have 50% running, then use 0.5. Now, I dont have any of these values on hand, but I suspect they are less intangible than some other QJM values.

I think there is not much traffic because we don't suffer fools gladly? And also because when serious questions - like yours - are asked, we often don't have the time now to answer them as we should.

Dont get me wrong - I am not under the illusion that you owe me anything. I was hoping for more general traffic on the site so I could get a range of opinions.

Actually, we can't sell iot for $13,000 any more, it's more like $83,000, otherwise it isn't worth it. The "hobbyist-no-support" version is Numbers, Predictions, and War I'm afraid. Plus Attrition and a few other titles. The things is of course, it isn't a wargame, it's a model, which is a slightly different thing.

Does "Attrition" (or other titles) add much more refinement to NPW/QJM ?

While QJM and TNDM are serious business, I think QJM can have a strong input into wargame design.

thanks,

Mad Dog

[Rich]

I would propose that you use the baseline value of what the expected running rate was. For example, if an M4 battalion was expected to have 95% running from a purely mechanical perspective, then use a 0.95 multiplicative factor. If a Tiger Bn was expected to only have 50% running, then use 0.5. Now, I dont have any of these values on hand, but I suspect they are less intangible than some other QJM values.

But what was "expected"? I would posit that it was 100 percent - for everyone. But what they actually got was quite different. But because reporting methodologies varied so much, as did operational environments, it's difficult to say what that was in some cases. Is the operational rates of a Panzer III in Africa in July the "valid" one if it is different from that in Russia in December?

It's basically a lot of work to make those determinations, anything else is at best a BOGSAT and at worst a guess.

[uote]Dont get me wrong - I am not under the illusion that you owe me anything. I was hoping for more general traffic on the site so I could get a range of opinions.[/quote]

Sites vary according to their attractiveness and willingness to devote inordinate amounts of time to pure silliness. Feldgrau and AHF are probably the best for general appeal - but even there the silliness factor can get out of hand. Go to AHF and look at the Operation Sealion threads for a good example.

Does "Attrition" (or other titles) add much more refinement to NPW/QJM ?

It shows some of the refinements that went into the TNDM.

While QJM and TNDM are serious business, I think QJM can have a strong input into wargame design.

The nice thing is that the OLI gives a set method of measuring weapons effectiveness with a fair degree of consistancy, but then it really only works within the QJM/TNDM construct. So apply that measure to another "game" system is probably meaningless.

Rich

[MadDog]

But what was "expected"? I would posit that it was 100 percent - for everyone. But what they actually got was quite different.

I wager that even the most psychotically optimistic German commander would not hope for a 100% running rate for a Tiger Bn.

I would imagine the running rate for a M4 battalion was very high - maybe 99.9999%. I cant back this up right now, but I am looking through what sources I can to see if this value is reported.

But because reporting methodologies varied so much, as did operational environments, it's difficult to say what that was in some cases. Is the operational rates of a Panzer III in Africa in July the "valid" one if it is different from that in Russia in December?

While temperature is certainly a valid modifier, I wonder offhand if the Weather Factors (h) in QJM already captures this.

It's basically a lot of work to make those determinations, anything else is at best a BOGSAT and at worst a guess.

A good source of information might be to ask a commander or mechanic of a current operating unit what his running rate is. Otherwise I am looking through army field manuals and after action reports.

It shows some of the refinements that went into the TNDM.

Are there any other TDI publications that show further breakdowns in the variables (such as my FCE question), or have tables of calculated OLI values ? I would be happy to purchase anything that furthers my understanding.

The nice thing is that the OLI gives a set method of measuring weapons effectiveness with a fair degree of consistancy, but then it really only works within the QJM/TNDM construct. So apply that measure to another "game" system is probably meaningless.

All boardgame designs use some form of "counting rifles" to generate a firepower or combat value. OLI is the most methodical and systematic way I have seen to do this. Even outside of QJM, I think using OLI for this purpose is perfectly valid.

thanks,

Tom