Correcto guerilla. It’s possible in finite numbers for an odds calculator to generate a 95% chance of winning for the 1 inf. It’s also possible for a person to run through a brick wall, technically speaking, though.
Posts made by aaFiendish
-
RE: New odds calculator
-
RE: New odds calculator
One of these days i’ll get an odds calculator to show the chances of 1 inf vs. 10 inf winning at 95%. Then I’ll be able to show why using an odds calculator by generating random numbers as rounds -> infinity is faulty :evil:
-
RE: New odds calculator
Looks nice, though I haven’t played with all the features. It’s obviously simple to add in other units (like naval), so you should when you have the chance. One thing that I find extremely useful is a breakdown of what units are left at the end, and what the percentage of each result is. That is, if I attack with 2 inf vs. 1 inf, what is the likelihood I would have 1 inf remaining vs. 2 inf remaining? That is a simple example, but it’s more useful in larger battles.
I was hoping that someone would write an odds calculator that mathematically computes the odds instead of running the simulations towards infinity and assuming the results are good. It would also be extremely quick to mathematically compute versus running samples. The math gets a little hairy though.
Thanks for the motivated work. It’s obviously still in beta, so hopefully you will keep the features coming. Btw, it also works fine in freebsd.
-
RE: Luftwaffe vs Royal Navy
@ncscswitch:
Now, Germany has 1 bomber and 5 figs left (OK, we’ll round down and go with 4 figs, even though you see the odds favor 5 figs left). UK has 1 naval unit on the board, a tranny off India.
You guys never do your odds right :evil:
On battle #1 you have as you say a 87% chance of winning the battle. So…13% of the time you lose all your fighters. In other odds, 26% of the time you lose one fighter. 12% of the time you lose two fighters. So, your odds of losing at least one fighter are 51%, in the battle alone. In your battle against the transport, 28% of the time you lose your fighter. So you are not “rounding down” by any means. The odds of you losing one fighter in round 1 is 79%, pretty high. The odds of you losing two is…(13% lose all fighters + 12% lose two fighters + 3% mutual destruct) 28% + 28% (tranny battle) / 2 = 28%. (the above paragraph is prone to errors, just like yours though).
So, 28% of the time your attack on the 2nd round will be 3 fighters and a bomber in battle #2, which ought to still let you clear the transports but eliminates a third attack. Even if you attacked the second time with 4 fighters and a bomber, despite your 59% chance of winning, your odds of a third attack are less than stellar. 41% of the time you lose all attacking, 16% of the time you are left with just a bomber. So…57% of the time you can’t really can’t attack a third time.
Anyhow, apart from odds, I would say that you are overlooking something critical. Every round the US transport moves to the UK seas it is dropping troops. It’s great that you keep sinking the US transports and all, but if you attack a third time and manage to kill two transports I am just going to take US transports as a loss. As shuck-shuck is not established yet, it’s not really a big deal. I just keep building transports and troops at home, giving me a full load into finland/norway. 6 inf + 3 transports a round is quite attainable, though it may be 5 inf + 3 transports once mainland forces are depleted. Obviously they would prefer to be doing more, but your strategy is only stopping the UK from landing. However, the loss of SOLELY UK troops is more than made up for by the lack of your luftwaffe.
-
RE: Where can I find a copy of Iron Blitz
Find it here:
http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=3842
I would rather use triplea.sourceforge.net any day. But then, it doesn’t have an AI if that’s what you were looking for. I would argue that iron blitz doesn’t have one either though.
-
RE: To Pearl or not to Pearl, that is the question . . .
So all your options look inferior to the attack on Pearl IMO. The JFK strat is also inferior to the atlantic strat. So the Pearl Harbor attack is mandatory!
I would not say that you the US has to buy an AC and 2 subs… Why? The Jap fleet is not directly threatning the US. So just build some trannies at the atlantic coast and you are good. If the Japanese want to go after the US they will just throw the game away, because everything they throw at the US means they cannot throw at the Russians… Rusland is the main target for the Axis not the UK or the US period. So anything wasted on those two will weaken the Russian front.
You are contradicting yourself Bashir. The pearl harbor attack is an attack against the US, which you say is mandatory. In the next paragraph you state that wasting resources on the US will weaken the russian front. So which is it? :evil:
-
RE: Critique this Germany Opening Turn: Bye,Bye Boatie
This was the thread I was thinking of: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5417.0
This was then revisited due to points brought up here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5456.0I did point out the transport would die, but I appreciate the support :wink:
-
RE: To Pearl or not to Pearl, that is the question . . .
Limitedwhole:
Please, please, please go read the rest of the forums on this site. Do not insult our intelligence by assuming you hold the answers that no one else here does. While we’d all love to debate you on points that we have gone over three thousand times, I think it makes more sense for you to immerse yourself in previous threads where people have the same opinion that you do.
-
RE: A no-bid Axis Win?
You also have depopulated islands, need to spend 30 I.P. per turn to fill the five TP after turn three preventing you from buying planes or anything other than INF really. Optimal means max infantry in tempo while maintaing balance towards turns 4-6. Congradulations you shipped the tank one turn earlier and had tow more inf on turn three. The price you pay is measured in what you purchase afterwords. You have completely pigeonholed your strategy.
Depopulated islands are your friend. I’d rather have 1 inf on the mainland than 1 inf on any of my islands. If the US really wants to island hop then godspeed to them.
-
RE: "Alternate" Japan Naval Strats
You have to reply with a little more substance than that limited. I think that ncswitch has shown a plausible alternate strategy. What you are I think missing is that the japan navy is not “missing” anything. They are optimizing their mainland landing by consolidating in the japan seas. They don’t even need to consolidate as it were, they could always send a BB and transports up to SFE as well.
-
RE: Critique this Germany Opening Turn: Bye,Bye Boatie
Okay, here’s two problems. Okay, not the only problem, but I’ll go easy on you. Your battleship and newly built transport will die on round 1, first off. The UK can send two fighters against your BB, and one bomber against your transport. The UK will likely lose its two fighters in the end, but it’s not the end of the world, especially since you are being such a pussycat against russia.
In R1 as russia I will typically strafe you in the ukraine. Lets say that leaves me with 4 inf, and you with 1 armor, 1 fighter. In eastern europe you stack, if I am following your orders, 8 inf, 1 armor, 3 fighters. As russia next round I attack with…16 inf, 3 armor, 3 fighters. That should let me win with about 7 inf, 3 armor. You can counter with 4 inf, 5 armor, 2 fighters and a bomber. You win with 4 armor and your planes. The armor I decimate next round with russia. Meanwhile the UK is running around like a stepford wife and spending money on all of her toys, laughing at the sad state of the luftwaffe. Hell, on round 2 the UK could likely take eastern europe back, letting russia attack norway or just drink vodka.
I find that germany cannot afford to build much besides defense on round 1, and you better stack eastern europe hard on round 1 or Russia will take it from you in round 2. If you look around for a ncswitch post he has a better strategy that revolves around transport buys.
-
RE: 8 bid, RR, Axis victory
@ncscswitch:
Why not just have Fiendish or one of the other simulation/probablity wiz’s run the numbers then, if you just want the flat statistical analysis?
I’m not a odds wiz by any means, I just believe in following them strongly. I also know about a useful program: http://www.jason.bilbrey.com/aasim/
-
RE: 8 bid, RR, Axis victory
@221B:
OR the Allies could take the 8 or so infantry Russia (along with reinforcements from the east) will build on R2 and add the UK fighters for defense for a stand in Moscow. Assuming the most likely favorable outcome for the Axis, 8 inf + 3 fighters defending against 3 tanks + 5 fighters. Again the odds favor the Allies ( I again get 57% to 43% when I run the numbers, my odds calculator is home so I am doing this manually, am I correct AAfiendish??).
Do you mean 3 tanks + 5 fighters vs. 8 inf + 3 fighters? That is heavily in favor of the defender, like 97% or so. I don’t think germany would even have that though, as they would use fighters on karelia and lose probably at least one in UK seas. At most I think they’d have 3 fighters. They certainly wouldn’t be able to take moscow immediately, and probably wouldn’t try. I don’t think that conceding karelia is a good idea though. Letting germany build in karelia is not something I’d be willing to let happen, especially when they will solidly own it and ukraine, and if they feel like it trading caucus. This puts russia pretty far in the hole. I think that if germany takes karelia you have to take it back. Later in the game you can potentially cede it if it helps the allies, but giving it solidly to germany early in the game would be tough.
-
RE: 8 bid, RR, Axis victory
I think it is unfortunate switch that you are hellbent on relying on a strategy that gives you a 50% chance. I personally feel that the game should start out with a roughly 50% chance of each side winning. The goal that I place upon myself is increasing my odds to something much higher than that throughout the game and then taking that chance.
I feel that by attacking karelia you are taking the chance that if you win, and win very strongly, it will probably give you the game. 50% of the time you won’t win the karelia battle, however, and you just won’t be able to recover. Yes you can hole up in germany and create a strong fortress europe, but with all of your armor and most of your inf spent, you won’t ever really be a threat. Okay, if you get heavy bombers you might be, but I find tech pretty cheesy in this case, and most others. Instead of using tech to make the game even, I would prefer to add units to give me that 50%, and then through good play raise my percentage. I define good play as a series of moves and attacks that give me favorable position and unit exchange. I guess I just don’t like the fact that the absolute worst player in existence could still win simply by rolling heavy bombers, whereas if they did not tech they probably never would. It does not even the ground between the axis and allies, it evens the ground between good and bad players. That is just my opinion though, and I wouldn’t even consider myself a good player, I just try to be.
In terms of karelia, if you take it and I have no transports as the UK I will hit it with naked air and clean up whatever is left. I’ll probably lose a plan or two in the process, but that’s the breaks. If you land your fighters from japan there, I will attack it with 2 1’s and 2 3’s (you forgot the fighter in the UK?) giving me a 80% chance of taking. We then trade for another round. Yes it is a pain if germany takes it, but that 50% chance is what irks me. If you were able to win assuredly after the 50% chance, okay maybe. As it is though, you could definitely still lose. If it pans out it makes the game pretty even, but if it doesn’t it makes it pretty uneven.
I’m going off of memory here, but with the odds I ran for karelia and the assumption that you were planning on hitting the canada tranny with a sub?, that leaves you attacking UK seas with 3 fighters, 1 sub vs. 1 battleship, 1 sub, 2 transports. That gives you only 70% chance of winning (combined with your other 50%), and when you win you will most likely lose at least one fighter, maybe two. If you attack with two subs and your three fighters, you have a 90% chance of winning, much better. It is still quite probably that you lose a fighter, though less so. Now there is a pesky transport that can go to karelia though, allowing the UK to take it back if you managed to take it in the first place. You could try and leave a sub to block that, but then you decrease your chances of taking and substantially increase fighter loss. Indeed, if you tried to leave a sub you would probably be down to 1 fighter, 2 fighters at most really. If you were only left with one fighter, I wouldn’t bother building a carrier and I’d just go heavy on the transports. If you took with two fighters, I’ll probably still have to build an AC, but at that point you would have a damn weak assault against the navy and in UK 2 troops begin landing.
-
RE: 8 bid, RR, Axis victory
Even with the 8 inf bid into the baltic, I think it is still shown that karelia is a bad idea. You have to do really well to not have karelia taken back, and if you don’t it’s game over. Effectively by placing that transport there you make your chances at taking karelia strongly better, but still marginal, and if russia does defend you have wasted 8 ipcs.
-
RE: 8 bid, RR, Axis victory
Anyone got the odds of an Axis take of Kar with 2+ arm when the attack looks like this:
13 inf, 7 arm, 2 ftrs, 1 bom vs. 19 inf, 3 arm, 1 ftr?God dammit, I can’t keep up with you two. Good points on both sides. The only thing I was holding on to in the end that I could comment on was the fact that the US can reinforce KAR no problem, but DM got to that in his last post.
Since I’m the odds man around here, I’ll lay it down for you:
50% chance for attacker win, 48% chance for defender win, and about 2% chance for mutual kaboom.
The interesting part is that if the defender wins they come out looking a lot better than the offender. 28% of the time the defender will come out of the battle with all of its armor and a fighter. Within that 28%, there is a roughly even divide between infantry. That is, of the 28% pie, it is evenly divided between holding with not only the armor and fighter, but 0 inf, 1 inf, 2 inf, 3 inf, 4 inf, 5 inf. It is just as likely that Russia will hold with 1 inf as it does with 4. On the flipside…
There is about a 24% chance for the offense to succeed with armor on the ground, and saving its air. In that 24% chance there is a roughly even divide between 1 armor, 2 armor, 3 armor, 4 armor, and 5 armor. Talking outside of either of the above outcomes would be silly, as they would be very far from the mainstream dice.
Hope that helps. Obviously, germany can take out its air sooner rather than later to improve what it takes with. It really is still such a crapshoot. I wish people would stop having pipedreams about karelia.
-
RE: Strategic bombing raids…
Regardless, heavy bombers can ruin the game. I would prohibit them from being used.
-
RE: 8 bid, RR, Axis victory
Yeah. I personally like not playing with RR, but with bids. I would rather have a higher bid than RR. I like having the flexibility to do what I please as Russia. Also, like DM, I don’t like tech rolls. I’d rather give a tech up front than add a completely random element to the game.
If you don’t get any tech rolls, your odds on britain are only at 40% to take with a ground unit. If I see you build a transport with your build, you better believe I am transporting an inf or two over in RR. 1 inf gives you a 21% chance, 2 gives you a 8% chance. Hell even with heavy bombers you’d have a tough time on the above with 2 inf, less than 50%. Sure the above allows you to take karelia easier, but your chances are still at most marginal. Didn’t I see you state in another thread that if you were just going to do X why even bother playing? The same applies to above.
If you want you can easily make it so that bids can’t be used to by naval units. It really isn’t a firm process.
-
RE: A no-bid Axis Win?
It is quite unusual dice. In any event though, japan should not be taking moscow by J4 even without allied assistance.
-
RE: "Alternate" Japan Naval Strats
Are you guys even paying attention to what NC is writing? He clearly states in the first sentence that these are for if you are NOT going to pearl harbor. Therefore, any comments on this thread should be, in my opinion, related to this. If you want to discuss the merits of pearl harbor take it to another discussion, it has been talked about ad nauseum. I’m glad to see nc’s posts, which are "alternate"s and don’t feel the need to debate pearl harbor five million times. There are plusses and minusses, well discussed, just like a manchuria attack.