Just donated 25 USD to TripleA.
The Captain
Feature requests for TripleA
-
V, can you include your NOTES on that spread sheet?
So people understand the deviations, and how to read it properly. :P
Basically the addage that in Axis and allies, if you’re roll average is less than 3.5, they are with you, if they are greater than 3.5 they are against you.
-
OK its starting to get pretty nerdy in here……
Once you know the means and standard deviation of all dice rolled by both sides, you could use a t test to definitively test whether the difference in dice rolls between the two sides is statistically significant. The t test is empirically robust with violations of its assumptions, but in this case the sampling distribution will be approximately normal with a mean about 3.5 so the test is very appropriate to this situation. It will tell you the likelihood of the difference between all dice rolled by the axis side versus the allies side. If t is equal to or greater than 1.645 then the someone got diced, which will happen about 1 in 10 games.
See formulas in the “Unequal sample sizes, equal variance” section of “Independent two-sample t-test” about halfway down this wikipedia post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student’s_t-test -
Ok, so for all the stoopid folks. How can we get somekind of simple reading, which uses the math, and seperates the dice 50/50, 60/40, 70/30 etc.
IE, based off the average rolling, and the standard deviation etc, OVERALL, the dice are rolling lower for -this- side, than -that side.
A simple Dice Gauge, that rolls from Even, to troublesome, to massacre based on the T calculations, and the reality that in axis and allies lower dice are better.
-
A simple way to do it would be for TripleA to calculate the t statistic using the formulas on that wikipedia post or any stats textbook and if it comes out to 1.645 or greater, then a little notice could come up saying something like “the allies have had significantly lower dice rolls than the axis so far in this game”. If its not 1.645 then the two are not significantly different from one another and there is justification for dice whining.
-
I think for the non-mathematically able, they could just read the “average” dice number.
I’ll take a quick look at the t thingy, but I make no promises if it looks even remotely hard to code. After all, variance and standard deviation already tell you everything you need to know.
Lastly, I will do no comparisons between different nations or sides, purely because the sides are dynamic.Here is an example of a Dice Report for the Forum poster:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28114.msg999794#msg999794 -
I think for the non-mathematically able, they could just read the “average” dice number.
Agreed.
We could probably even do without the deviations… is it too much info?
-
let just see how it is received first.
anyway, this thread is not supposed to be only about dice stats.
are there any other feature requests?
-
Honestly… you have included so many awesome features already, it’s hard to think of anything else lol… I just ran through ALL of tripleA, and -looked- for anything else I could think of.
It’s all there, zooming, history, editing… stats
Perhaps being able to editing/add damaged ships, and factories… and a back/forward feature during a countries turn, that’s it. or more end of turn/game reporting (Builds, losses, all stuff that’s in history anyways - but now compiled into a reprot) I assume this hasn’t been done already though, because it would be a pain in the ass.
I owe you some $ for this dice feature V, I’ll get it to you shortly.
-
Okay, I have some suggestions. These are not bugs, they are merely ideas to help improve the whole experience - and I would be very grateful if they could be considered. Here goes:
1 - When viewing all of the combatants in a given embattled game space using the ‘Territory’ tab, would it be possible to line up each faction’s units side by side instead of underneath each other? My reason being is that the vertical list of units is sometimes so long that it goes off the bottom of the screen. This in effect creates a scroll bar which would be fine except that you can’t manipulate/interact with it (in other words, you can’t scroll down the list). There is plenty of room in the pane to list all of the combatants side by side, and even type by type e.g.
France Germany
6 Infantry 3 Infantry
2 Artillery -
3 Tanks 6 TanksIn my example above, Germany has no Artillery units in the battle and so only a ‘dash’ is displayed (-). My idea would capture all of the required data on the screen without having to scroll down.
2 - Would it please be possible to allow players to manage the size of the combat screen window? It is expandable, but seems to re-size itself every time it appears. This is a hassle because it often means that all the units that fire @ 4 are concealed by the ‘casualties’ section of the window. It would be great if players could re-size the window as required and then freeze it so that it reappears in the desired size every time. Again, this idea is simply to allow more information to be viewed with minimal fuss.
3 - Scenario: I have 1 sea unit to place and I click on an eligible sea zone to place it during the MNU phase. Can the ‘place unit’ interface please be amended so that 1 unit is automatically selected instead of having to click the ‘up’ arrow to select 1 unit manunally? Or even better, if the unit could just be dropped straight into the sea zone (without the interface having to appear)? This is intuitive and would save players a little bit of time and hassle. And I think it could be aaplied to all units; not just sea.
Thanks very much for reading.
-
Hi boys,
First of all, congrats to Veqryn and all the other developers, TripleA rules! I’ve been playing on ABattlemap since so many years, I can’t believe I’ve just started using TripleA yesterday!
My suggestions are probably already implemented in TripleA, but I’ve looked through the forums and didn’t find anything about it.
-When playing Low Luck, would it be possible to have an option to merge the Offshore Bombardment and the Subs rolls (when possible and adequate) with the other rolls? Like if you attack a cruiser with a Sub and a Bmb, I’d like to have the possibility to have a sure hit instead of the 1@2 suprise strike + the 1@4 bomber roll. I surrender my surprise strike in exchange of the sure hit. Of course when air units are present, it’s a bit more complicated. For the Offshore Bombardment, it would be perfect! I think most editions have the unit hit by the bombardment roll for defense, so why separate the attacking rolls? It would be nice to have this option.
-In Anniversary, is there a way to see the National Objectives? I’m guessing there’s an option for that and I’ve just not discovered it yet, but if there isn’t, it would be nice to have it. I have to open ABattlemap just to remember them. (OK I haven’t played an AA50 game in more than a year, it’s probably why I don’t remember them ;))
Thanks! And sorry if these options/features are already implemented!
-
Is there any way to keep track of individual units for the sake of game analysis (e.g. by giving each unit its own unique alphanumeric designation)?
Also, if (along with the color change) we could get rid of ‘Pro-Axis’ and ‘Pro-Allied’ territory tags after they’ve been conquered and that information is no longer relevant, that would be good (as well as adding the appropriate ‘Pro-X’ tags to true neutrals after they had been invaded by the other side).
Cheers, MIR
-
Hi Veqryn,
Any thoughts or comments on my suggestions? :?
Many thanks,
Loz
-
@ loz
1. I don’t think i will be changing it, there isn’t really enough room.2. I can probably find a way to increase the default size by a little bit
3. Actually i don’t really like this idea
@ ash,
1. Unfortunately that would not be mathematically fair. Any time you merge things, the math ends up being unfair in some exploitable way.2. I hope to add a panel for objectives. The problem is however, there are lots and lots of objectives and conditions and stuff, and they will not make sense to the user 99% of the time if we pull it from the engine data. However, most maps with objectives have “Game Notes” that detail everything you need to know.
@ mir,
1. I don’t really understand what you mean by tracking individual units. What would the point be? How would this help anyone besides making the UI more confusing….2. Right now the map picture stuff is static and won’t go away. Maybe in the future we can make it dynamic in some way.
-
@ loz
1. I don’t think i will be changing it, there isn’t really enough room.2. I can probably find a way to increase the default size by a little bit
3. Actually i don’t really like this idea
Thanks Veqryn. In response to that I would say:
1. That’s a shame. Can you at least make the scrollbar moveable? Otherwise, I can’t see all the units involved in a prospective embattled territory.
2. Thank you. I only ask that all the relevant info pertaining to a battle be immediately available to view in the combat screen, without having to move/adjust anything.
3. Why don’t you like this idea? It is intuitive and I think it would be a great improvement. Less micro-management, less time consuming.
Thanks again.
-
the scroll bar moves for me….
-
@ ash,
1. Unfortunately that would not be mathematically fair. Any time you merge things, the math ends up being unfair in some exploitable way.2. I hope to add a panel for objectives. The problem is however, there are lots and lots of objectives and conditions and stuff, and they will not make sense to the user 99% of the time if we pull it from the engine data. However, most maps with objectives have “Game Notes” that detail everything you need to know.
Thanks for your answers
1. Ok
2. Ok. I don’t think these “Game Notes” are available from the thumbnails on top, right? I see the game notes when I choose a specific game on the starting screen, but it would be nice to have it in the “Game” tab on top, just below “View Game Options…”
3. A new question, would it be possible to have an option so that the Low Luck SBR do 2 less dmg when there is an AA defending, instead of rolling @1 to destroy the Bmb? The 2 dmg being 1/6th of a Bmb cost. So a SBR would do 3 or 4 dmg against no AA, and 1 or 2 against an AAgun. We’ve always worked this way in our LL matches.
Thanks!
-
Game Notes are available from the “help” menu while playing a game.
Also, the suggestion of not rolling aa guns when sbr bombing would be too weird to code. Remember we don’t just play Global, we also play revised, classic, and many other games.
-
Ok thanks
-
@ mir,
I don’t really understand what you mean by tracking individual units. What would the point be? How would this help anyone besides making the UI more confusing….Tracking individual units would do (at least) two things:
-
Allow players to identify with particular units, to give them more ‘flavor’ with the game’s mechanics, e.g.: “I hope this fighter makes it through this battle; he’s been through four so far.”
-
Allow strategists to better understand the optimal use of certain units (especially starting units) by being able to see where they end up in a typical game, e.g.: “JF003 (Japan Fighter #3) ended up in the Mediterranean in this game; very strange!”
Neither of these functions is vital, but I judge both to be desirable.
-
-
@ mir,
I don’t really understand what you mean by tracking individual units. What would the point be? How would this help anyone besides making the UI more confusing….Tracking individual units would do (at least) two things:
-
Allow players to identify with particular units, to give them more ‘flavor’ with the game’s mechanics, e.g.: “I hope this fighter makes it through this battle; he’s been through four so far.”
-
Allow strategists to better understand the optimal use of certain units (especially starting units) by being able to see where they end up in a typical game, e.g.: “JF003 (Japan Fighter #3) ended up in the Mediterranean in this game; very strange!”
Neither of these functions is vital, but I judge both to be desirable.
Haha it would be awesome :)
-
Suggested Topics
