Notes on a lecture delivered to the members of the Centre For Provocative Wargaming Analysis Gentlemen, today's lecture centers on a little understood aspect of game theory, to wit, that in a wargame, (a) tossing a 6-sided die, and (b) moving and/or controlling a number of groups equal to the number of pips tossed, constitutes (c) a highly accurate representation of the tactical command/control structure on the battlefield. Or so a small, dedicated group of wargaming authors would have you believe. Their proselytes have filled the letters-to-the-editor columns of the wargaming magazines with praise for the system, stating that, regardless of era, regardless of the degree of military sophistication, and regardless of the type of warfare, the move-a-group-per-pip doctrine is the greatest thing invented since sliced bread. "Humbug!", sez I. Perhaps with the exception of siege warfare, a battlefield is the scene of constantly shifting, constantly moving, forces in a balance of power act. Move-a-group-per-pip, however, advocated by the DBA/DBM fan clubs, invariably results in a large percentage of the units present remaining immobile for an appreciable amount of time, indeed, if you have a series of rotten die rolls, for most of the battle. Universal application of this pip system, across the board, from the most ancient of eras, through the horse-and-musket period, to the turn of the century, sweeps away all the complexities of command developed throughout the centuries. Whether you have clusters of bare-footed Etruscan axemen, or of bands of Norman knights, or of regiments of musketeers, they'll all move forward only if the die tells you so. IPT Inverse Pip Theory (IPT) does away with this inconsistancy. Here, on a per-pip basis, instead of remaining immobile and comatose, all units must move forward, must advance, unless controlled by an assigned pip. I must note that the DBA/DBM authors are aware of IPT. There is provision in the DBA/DBM system for a partial implementation of IPT. I believe there are certain warbands that must go forward unless controlled, and in DBM, when an opposing force commences a withdrawal, your own force must be held back by the assignment of pips. But these are unusual occurrences, rather than the rule. Sooner or later, the DBA/DBM advocates are going to wake up and to realize that their system is (and you'll pardon my use of the vernacular) ass-backwards. At that time, they will crow that they knew it all along, that they were only waiting for the right moment to implement the change, and that henceforth, move-a-group-per-pip is antiquated, out of date and unrealistic. Suffice it to say that you heard it here, first... Back to PW Review April/May 1994 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1994 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com