Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
Er... no I didn't but. .. I suspect it ended up getting lumped in under 'national x-factors': Dupuy's curve fitting fudge number.MadDog wrote: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.
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.MadDog wrote:I just found some oddities in the OLI system and tried asking in the Dupuy Institute forums, but those are mostly dead.
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...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.
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.papagolfwhiskey wrote:Er... no I didn't but. .. I suspect it ended up getting lumped in under 'national x-factors': Dupuy's curve fitting fudge number.
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...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.
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?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.
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 ).MadDog wrote: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.
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.Is there not much traffic because TDNM is the current model ?
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?MadDog wrote: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.
It shows some of the refinements that went into the TNDM.Does "Attrition" (or other titles) add much more refinement to NPW/QJM ?
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.While QJM and TNDM are serious business, I think QJM can have a strong input into wargame design.