Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "Can you calculate war? Are war games pointless? (Praxeology vs the Ossipov-Lanchester equations)" video.

My take on war games is summarized in the following: "Plans Are Useless But Planning Is Indispensable" War games are not realistic. War games are when people have made up rules for what someone can and can't do, and then make a game about it. The game is only as realistic as the rules allow them to be, and no one can make rules that are good enough to accurately predict the real world. Especially not when the enemy haven't yet showed their hand. Should a War Game be able to predict a loss for the US in Vietnam? The US had ground, air and naval superiority and still lost. Should a War Game be able to predict Afghanistan?
15
@billanderson1075 1.The US lost in Vietnam. It didn't matter you won every battle. The US lost. 2. But they can never be an accurate representation of reality. That is impossible. 3. Yet the Us tried for 20 years and lost. Just like in Vietnam.
3
So... How much will some random movement of an elementary particle actually affect anything? Also. The study of elementary particles is not nuclear physics. It is Particle Physics. I think you do not really know what a elementary particle is if you mix those two up. We are not talking about electrons, neutrons, gamma-, alpha- and beta-radiation with elementary particles. We are talking about stuff like Quarks, Photons and Higgs.
1
@АлександрНевельский-л2з Apart from that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work at 100%. 99.999999% is enough to call is accurate. The decay of atoms is actually very accurate due to the scale they release radiation at. It is why atomic clocks are the most accurate clocks in the world. I know your point. The problem is that you are trying to be smart when you are not that smart. It doesn't matter we do not know the exact location of an electron at all times. It doesn't change the fact your hand will not teleport to the moon or a sword will not turn into cheese. The things you are talking about are so minuscule they are IRRELEVANT to the discussion.
1
@pavlovsdog2551 I think you forgot what the question was. The question was not that you can't learn something. The question was how REALISTIC a wargame is. If you shoot skeets with a shotgun, you are practicing to shoot bird and stuff as they fly away. Sure. You can learn how to shoot well with a shotgun that way, but only a fool will say skeet shooing is a realistic simulation of shooting birds in the wild. The same logic applies here. You will never ever have a wargame so well-designed it becomes realistic. The fact you create rules based on what you think will happen does not actually mean those rules apply in reality. A skeet might follow a predictable pattern, but a bird might not. I want to give you an example. The mark 14 torpedo the USA used in WW2. On paper this torpedo worked just as it should. The Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance thought the weapon should work 98% of the time. In the field however it didn't preform that well. In recorded extreme case a submarine commander used 15 out of 16 torpedoes and only 1 actually exploded. This means the weapon only worked 6.7% of the time and not 98%. I want you, as the Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance, to create a wargame based on your testing and this torpedoed without the knowledge of how it preforms in the fields as this is before the USA joins the war. If you say the torpedo is anything less then 98% reliable you are being dishonest as that is what they actually thought. The Mk. 14 torpedo is a good example that shows a wargame is not a realistic portrayal of reality. You can not before the event have full knowledge of how the future will be. Wargames are not worthless, but they are not realistic. And as I said at the start. Plans Are Useless But Planning Is Indispensable. To use a wargame to make plans is useless. It will not survive contact with the enemy.
1