I will double check how come my friend (well also my opponent) manages to kill my battleship in the first turn all the time.
Do you move the Russian sub to link with the Z2 navy? That decreases the chances from 70% to 35%
German navy
-
Your buying bombers now???
If USA were to be dumb enough to buy them, you would simply hold back the CV from the attack to merge it in SZ7 with the BB, sacrificing a fighter if need be, or retreat after thrashing the UK fleet and leaving the UK BB.
2 bombers is a waste of IPC and wont help the allies much at all.
I cant see how this would be a good allied purchase….
Squirecam
-
Your buying bombers now???
If USA were to be dumb enough to buy them, you would simply hold back the CV from the attack to merge it in SZ7 with the BB, sacrificing a fighter if need be, or retreat after thrashing the UK fleet and leaving the UK BB.
2 bombers is a waste of IPC and wont help the allies much at all.
I cant see how this would be a good allied purchase….
Squirecam
He’s got you there, Imperious. I agree with much of your analysis, but don’t see why you need 2 bom to make it work. We need a cage match to settle this. I love Days of Wonder; it’s possible to observe some of their online games. Would love to watch you two duke it out, squire as Axis.
-
Your buying bombers now???
If USA were to be dumb enough to buy them, you would simply hold back the CV from the attack to merge it in SZ7 with the BB, sacrificing a fighter if need be, or retreat after thrashing the UK fleet and leaving the UK BB.
2 bombers is a waste of IPC and wont help the allies much at all.
I cant see how this would be a good allied purchase….
Well I’m not exactly doing anything “now” it was just a possible counter to the German unification that is now 3 turns in the making…
If your gonna “now” not bring in the carrier and leave it in the Baltic, then I guess UK can save additional 24 Point BB from the loss ledger. Now since your not going out of of that hole. I guess the Americans can then kill the other German fleet in SZ #7 instead which is much better on paper in terms of net IPC gain to Allies, While i also gained from the UK battleship.
Should i do the extrapolations on this?
Or are you now gonna say "hey then ill just leave may force in the Baltic and leave the medd fleet in the medd… which is in fact the starting point of the game… so why is this a good idea after all of this?
UK and USA are in a better position. Once that UK BB survives the UK2 attack its totally over… I just rebuild my fleet and things are even worse for germany.
I think this idea was one of those “window of opportunity” strategies… Its not a long term battle because germany only has the one wad of ships to play with.
BTW this is much better discourse than before. Congratulations. :-D
-
I agree with much of your analysis, but don’t see why you need 2 bom to make it work.
The idea was to sweep up the balance of baltic fleet which is out of position.
Yes but i was offering what i thought was the counter to unification. If now they say that “gee i never planned on such an idea ever” then i guess I would have to try something else in terms of counter because now this is going from an active plan to a mere threat of a plan.
I suppose fighters could work as well but they dont reach SZ 6…. ok so i got 30+ to spend… so whats wrong with 2 bombers?.. what would you suggest the build be… remember it has to reach SZ # 7 or 6 by USA2.
I can get to Sea Zone 6 with fighters only
I suppose a different force would required if i went against the medd fleet leaving and going to #7 That is a sub, BB and tranny= 4 hit fleet/ 1 hit per round
The USA force could go after that instead.
-
okay goys like sewiously…
instead of all this talking, let’s see this played out in practice… I’d like to see this discussions carried out in actual play, as in “here’s my play, how do you counter THAT”.
For analysis purposes, it’d be best to do this with No Luck, so you can see what the expected result would be.
-
I dont play online. Can you just play it out yourself… or better yet you play germany and follow the script. Ill post the counters or others can do it instead. Remember you have to follow the plan to its logical conclusion. Buy the 3 AP and 1 CV on turn one, and goto sz 6 and attack on G2
Also your medd fleet has to take gibralter and post at west medd. on G2 it has to come out together at #7
Ill post UK moves.
Do Low luck and whatever else you use. so we can compare different results for average.
Remember we allready went this route and got not takers. I guess that was an idea that needs no testing… like most scientific theroy it does not need to be proven ( note hidden sarcasm)
-
@Imperious:
Now the British build a CV and Destroyer on Uk1 (save 2)
Invasion of London?
-
@froodster:
okay goys like sewiously…
instead of all this talking, let’s see this played out in practice… I’d like to see this discussions carried out in actual play, as in “here’s my play, how do you counter THAT”.
For analysis purposes, it’d be best to do this with No Luck, so you can see what the expected result would be.
No Luck does NOT give expected results.
Flip a coin 4 times. What’s the odds of 2 heads and 2 tails?
According to No Luck, it’s 100%.
According to actual probability - 37.5%.
A system that indicates a 100% likelihood of something that is actually only 37.5% likely to occur in acutality is not an accurate predictor of expected results.
God, kids these days and their “average results”!
If I eat 80 pounds of food every day over the course of a year, and 19 other people eat 0 pounds of food every day over the course of a year, should I say that on average, we each had four pounds a day? SURE, because it’s TRUE, isn’t it? But of course what REALLY happens is you have one extremely fat owl, and nineteen people dead of starvation!
D*** statistics anyways!
–
Things you get in mail order should always have a warranty and a return policy, and preferably a 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Since I do not believe mail order brides fall into that category, I will not order a mail order bride at this time.
However, if a company should exist that does offer those features for mail order brides, I will order, um, twelve.
-
I’m not going to comment on if I think a German navy is a good or bad idea, because frankly I’m not sure. But I will comment on this
@froodster:
instead of all this talking, let’s see this played out in practice… I’d like to see this discussions carried out in actual play, as in “here’s my play, how do you counter THAT”.
and this
@Imperious:
you play germany and follow the script. Ill post the counters or others can do it instead. Remember you have to follow the plan to its logical conclusion. Buy the 3 AP and 1 CV on turn one, and goto sz 6 and attack on G2
Also your medd fleet has to take gibralter and post at west medd. on G2 it has to come out together at #7
This exercise would prove nothing. The game isn’t played that way in reality. The German player does not say to the Allied player “This is exactly my plan, and I’m going through with it no matter what, try and stop me!” in actual play.
In actual play, the German player makes his G1 move, and then does his G2 move based on the Allied counter moves. If the Allied counter moves makes the fleet unification a bad move, the German player does something else on G2. Does that mean setting up on G1 for a unification that never happens on G2 was bad a G1 move? Not necessarily, it all depends on what the Allies gave up doing in order to stop the G2 unification.
-
I’m not going to comment on if I think a German navy is a good or bad idea, because frankly I’m not sure. But I will comment on this
@froodster:
instead of all this talking, let’s see this played out in practice… I’d like to see this discussions carried out in actual play, as in “here’s my play, how do you counter THAT”.
and this
@Imperious:
you play germany and follow the script. Ill post the counters or others can do it instead. Remember you have to follow the plan to its logical conclusion. Buy the 3 AP and 1 CV on turn one, and goto sz 6 and attack on G2
Also your medd fleet has to take gibralter and post at west medd. on G2 it has to come out together at #7
This exercise would prove nothing. The game isn’t played that way in reality. The German player does not say to the Allied player “This is exactly my plan, and I’m going through with it no matter what, try and stop me!” in actual play.
In actual play, the German player makes his G1 move, and then does his G2 move based on the Allied counter moves. If the Allied counter moves makes the fleet unification a bad move, the German player does something else on G2. Does that mean setting up on G1 for a unification that never happens on G2 was bad a G1 move? Not necessarily, it all depends on what the Allies gave up doing in order to stop the G2 unification.
I approve this message.
-
–
-
I think I agree with James G there - the fleet unification play of building TRNs in the Baltic is probably more useful for what it forces the allies to do than for actual fleet unification. Hence, it prolly shouldn’t called a play but a threat.
An in response to NPB: Of course No Luck does not demonstrate actual percentages. However, from experience with my Sim, 9 times out of ten the No Luck result is the result that is most likely to occur out of 10,000 runs.
Now, if you want to test out a strategy, you have to follow it through multiple turns. To do that you have to choose one particular outcome for each turn so you can move on to the next. I’d say that the most common result is the one that should be followed (or perhaps one that is slightly worse, to account for a bit of bad luck).
I know that A&A is a wild and woolly game (esp. after my just concluded game with Switch) and you’ll rarely get the exact result that “No Luck” suggests. However, on average, your results will be within a certain range of those results.
How else would you test out a strategy somewhat objectively? By ranting about it in a forum? That’s not how the game is played either.
No. If you follow a strategy through and it works out based on average results, then I think it’s fair to say that it is a sound strategy.
Nowhere did I say that the No Luck result was a 100% certainty. But it’s the best outcome to follow in terms of analyzing the mid-point between good and bad luck and how a given strategy will play out.
After all, this is how casinos and insurance companies make money - they evaluate the probabilities of certain events. The fact that some smokers live to 90 and some vegans cash out at 30 does not mean they are wrong to set higher premiums for smokers.
Suppose you were gambling on the outcome of four coin tosses, and you had to stake $100 on one specific outcome. While two heads and two tails is nowhere near 100%, it would still be the best bet.
Here’s the breakdown:
all heads: 1/16
1 tail, 3 heads: 4/16
2 h, 2 t: 6/16
1 h, 3 t: 4/16
4 t: 1/16Where would you stake your $100?
-
The single most likely result is not the MOST LIKELY result.
When you say that something that happens a good 6% of the time should be used as a general predictor of strategy, you end up looking bad. Or you end up with a bad strategy.
If casinos and insurance companies used your brand of logic, smokers would have LOWERED insurance rates, because any particular smoker is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to develop lung cancer, so therefore NO smokers develop lung cancer. And casinos would be able to give 10,000 to 1 odds for the “0” on the roulette wheel, because since the “0” comes up so FEW times, it must THEREFORE really come up NO times.
-
It’s Springer time!
-
@Imperious:
I dont play online. Can you just play it out yourself…
Remember we allready went this route and got not takers. I guess that was an idea that needs no testing… like most scientific theroy it does not need to be proven ( note hidden sarcasm)
Edit: Another flame
jamesG is absolutely correct. You cannot “test” this by having 100% premonitions. You dont KNOW what your opponent will do, and so you must move guessing. If your opponent sees an opening based upon your moves, he will CHANGE his strategy.
Also, the “expected” result, if 37% is the top result, means that 63% of the time the expected result WONT OCCUR. So you cannot take a result as being “expected” if 2 out of every three times it doesnt happen.
But feel free to play something out amongst yourselves if you feel it validates your position.
Squirecam
-
Bring it on!
So now I look bad, do I? Oh yeah! Let’s frickin get it on like King Kong!
(only here do people trash talk each other about stats & probabilities)
Okay, NPB, I’ll try to make it simple so you understand. If you run my sim 10,000x, you’ll see a graph of all the results that occurred and how often they happened. That graph usually forms a bell curve. The fattest part of that curve may only be a 6% probability, but the most likely results will all be grouped around that possibility. And granted, the length of that graph is also an indicator of the “volatility” of a given battle. A battle with a wider range of results is harder to predict, and it is less likely that the median result will occur in a battle with a wide spread of results.
HOWEVER, how do you propose to test a strategy? By simply playing it out and letting the dice fall where they may?
If you want to analyze a strategy for future use in future games, what is more reliable? The way it ACTUALLY worked the last time you tried it, or the mathematically demonstrated result with the highest rate of incidence?
Granted, my sim can only really show a range of expected results, not THE expected result. However, for planning, is there anything better to use than the result that occurs in the mid-point of that range, where 50% of results are better and 50% are worse? That represents what will happen with medium luck, and that’s how you have to evaluate a strategy.
If you want to predict what will likely happen, would you rather rely on one sample, or 10,000 samples?
Maybe we’re talking about different things… is NPB saying that there is no meaningful way to analyze a strategy in the abstract based on median results?
-
@froodster:
Bring it on!
So now I look bad, do I? Oh yeah! Let’s frickin get it on like King Kong!
(only here do people trash talk each other about stats & probabilities)
Okay, NPB, I’ll try to make it simple so you understand. If you run my sim 10,000x, you’ll see a graph of all the results that occurred and how often they happened. That graph usually forms a bell curve. The fattest part of that curve may only be a 6% probability, but the most likely results will all be grouped around that possibility. And granted, the length of that graph is also an indicator of the “volatility” of a given battle. A battle with a wider range of results is harder to predict, and it is less likely that the median result will occur in a battle with a wide spread of results.
HOWEVER, how do you propose to test a strategy? By simply playing it out and letting the dice fall where they may?
If you want to analyze a strategy for future use in future games, what is more reliable? The way it ACTUALLY worked the last time you tried it, or the mathematically demonstrated result with the highest rate of incidence?
Granted, my sim can only really show a range of expected results, not THE expected result. However, for planning, is there anything better to use than the result that occurs in the mid-point of that range, where 50% of results are better and 50% are worse? That represents what will happen with medium luck, and that’s how you have to evaluate a strategy.
If you want to predict what will likely happen, would you rather rely on one sample, or 10,000 samples?
Maybe we’re talking about different things… is NPB saying that there is no meaningful way to analyze a strategy in the abstract based on median results?
No, but this is evidence that “one game” wont show/prove anything. The dice being snarky and such, there can be wild variations in the plan.
But you dont need “a game” to see your “expected” result. Just math it out yourself…
Squirecam
-
But with the expected result you get +/- both good and bad.
So even if the expected result is 37%, meaning 63% the expected doesn’t happen.
This post:
Also, the “expected” result, if 37% is the top result, means that 63% of the time the expected result WONT OCCUR. So you cannot take a result as being “expected” if 2 out of every three times it doesnt happen.
Yes but of the 63% that don’t occur (“expected”), roughly half are going to be BETTER and half worse, give or take a few % points.
You’re looking at a battle that has 65-70% acceptable results for you.
Even a slight roll down may be acceptable pushing this number to say ~75%.
-
@froodster:
Bring it on!
So now I look bad, do I? Oh yeah! Let’s frickin get it on like King Kong!
Jer-ry! Â Jer-ry! Â Jer-ry!
(only here do people trash talk each other about stats & probabilities)
Okay, NPB, I’ll try to make it simple so you understand
Ooo! Â If you really want to make me read it enough to understand it, you should put it on a bikini, and put that bikini on Jessica Alba. Â No wait. Â You should PAINT it on Jessica Alba. Â Yeaaaaa.
If you run my sim 10,000x, you’ll see a graph of all the results that occurred and how often they happened. That graph usually forms a bell curve. The fattest part of that curve may only be a 6% probability, but the most likely results will all be grouped around that possibility. And granted, the length of that graph is also an indicator of the “volatility” of a given battle. A battle with a wider range of results is harder to predict, and it is less likely that the median result will occur in a battle with a wide spread of results.
So we agree. Â That Jessica Alba is hawt.
HOWEVER, how do you propose to test a strategy? By simply playing it out and letting the dice fall where they may?
The FIRST way to test a strategy is just to read it (or listen to it), and to listen to critics of that plan. Â The SECOND way to test a strategy is to see what allowances the strategy has for When Things Go Horribly Wrong (if the strategy doesn’t provide for contingencies, it sucks). Â Also in this step is to see what allowances the strategy has for When Things Go Really Right (because if the strategy doesn’t provide for unlooked for luck, it STILL is probably not that great). Â Etc. etc. Â Really, it’s a matter of thinking it out and discussing contingencies. Â A few dozen games wouldn’t hurt either.
If you want to analyze a strategy for future use in future games, what is more reliable? The way it ACTUALLY worked the last time you tried it, or the mathematically demonstrated result with the highest rate of incidence?
I stick with what works. Â Lol.
Granted, my sim can only really show a range of expected results, not THE expected result. However, for planning, is there anything better to use than the result that occurs in the mid-point of that range, where 50% of results are better and 50% are worse? That represents what will happen with medium luck, and that’s how you have to evaluate a strategy.
WHO can visit the most violence on deceased animals of the equine persuasion? Â I said my bit.
If you want to predict what will likely happen, would you rather rely on one sample, or 10,000 samples?
That’s my point. Â But I think I’m the one that’s talking about the 10,000 samples and that you’re the one that’s talking about the one sample. Â Of course, I’m sure you have rather a different understanding of the matter.
Maybe we’re talking about different things… is NPB saying that there is no meaningful way to analyze a strategy in the abstract based on median results?
My god, that is kind of what I’m saying, isn’t it?
Russia has a number of possibilities to choose from first turn. Â One of those possibilities is an attack on three German territories. Â Each single one of those attacks SLIGHTLY favors the Russians. Â If even ONE of those attacks fails, it really sucks for Russia. Â But - if you want to go by the SINGLE most likely outcome, which is what you will get in NoLuck or LowLuck, the Russians should ALWAYS execute those slightly favorable attacks. Â That is, the Russians will WIN 100% OF THE TIME.
However, in REAL life, dealing with REAL probabilities, USUALLY what happens if Russia tries this, is that at LEAST one of those battles fails quite spectacularly. Â And when that DOES happen, it REALLY sucks for Russia.
I think it works out to 52%, 54% and 56% or something like that for Russia winning any particular one of those battles, but for Russia to win ALL of those, the probability needs to be 52% * 54% * 56%, or about 16%.
So if you have somebody that based a strategy on NoLuck, or even LowLuck, that somebody is going to do something that IS going to succeed 100% OF THE TIME in NoLuck, or LowLuck. Â But that SAME strategy is only going to work 16% of the time with real dice. Â That is to say, that strategy is going to FAIL 84% OF THE TIME.
-
But with the expected result you get +/- both good and bad.
So even if the expected result is 37%, meaning 63% the expected doesn’t happen.
This post:
Also, the “expected” result, if 37% is the top result, means that 63% of the time the expected result WONT OCCUR. So you cannot take a result as being “expected” if 2 out of every three times it doesnt happen.
Yes but of the 63% that don’t occur (“expected”), roughly half are going to be BETTER and half worse, give or take a few % points.
You’re looking at a battle that has 65-70% acceptable results for you.
Even a slight roll down may be acceptable pushing this number to say ~75%.
That analysis would be great if there were just ONE BIG BATTLE in Axis and Allies.
What you really have is lots of little battles.
So let’s say you had a big-ass fighter and naval battle that turned out poorly for you (the 30% happened there), while you hosed Russia on trading territories that turn (you got your 70% there).
You just got smoked.
Suggested Topics
