Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sherman v Pz IV, is there a rating problem?
02-24-2017, 04:30 AM,
#15
RE: Sherman v Pz IV, is there a rating problem?
(02-24-2017, 03:55 AM)leonard Wrote:
(02-23-2017, 02:51 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "big" difference, but I submit that doubling a hit probability (which means a step loss at least) is big, significant, a rose by any other name.
Your calculation is correct but average numbers and statistics don't have much to do with the feel of a scenario. 

It is certainly a convenient segue to invoke a vague and undefinable term such as feel when confronted with facts in a quantifiable outcome game. Even so, one would have to be insensate not to feel an average doubling of step losses in any (single) scenario in which the armor contingent is significant (as I delimited in the post you cite).  And since feel presumably reflects actual experience vs. expectation (I feel I'm doing well in this scenario (by hitting more than is wont), or feel I'm getting jinxed, by hitting less than is wont)), right expectation vis-a-vis the statistics forms the normative.  
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Sherman v Pz IV, is there a rating problem? - by Poor Yorek - 02-24-2017, 04:30 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)