Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Easo79

quote:


The latter.

Nice!!

err...it would be so wonderful if there were a pre-release of the Manual...(at least a partial pre-release) I have enjoyed reading your tutorials, and it seems that the Manual is going to be a nice book in itself. I am struggling with the Rules as Written, but it is hard. Sometimes it is of the "The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part" kind of reading, of Marx (not Karl) fame

it is really hard to pre-release something that is still being edited.

but i´m sure that there will be more on this closer to the release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I disagree strongly.

1) Just because someone says that you are wrong, does not mean they are attacking you personally. I am told by the compiler dozens of times every day that I am wrong, but I do not believe that the compiler is attacking me personally. I've had beta testers reporting thousands of bugs in the game - where for one reason or another "I've done something wrong". That is not an attack on me personally.

2) The number of times you have said something that was incorrect in the forum is not a small number. But rarely have you posted, "oh yeah, I got that wrong."

3) This is just one case. You asked Cad908 "Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?" If you had bothered to look at his post, you would have seen that he has had over 1000 posts. Conclusion: your statement about his posts was wrong. But that seems to be a very difficult thing for you to admit.

4) Instead you change the subject so the argument goes in another direction (e.g., about beta testers posting to the open forum).

You see, you could have stated to Cad908 something like: "I haven't seen a lot of posts by you." That would have been an objective statement and non-aggressive. It would have opened the door for him to reply factually. That's not your style though is it?

5) As for your statement: "You know I will if he will.", that made me laugh. Years ago I decided that you appear to believe you have 'WON' any discussion/argument if you made the last post. Regardless of how convoluted a position you have to take (e.g., arguing about grammar and syntax in rules) to justify your opinion, you just keep going and going.

---

And yes, you have managed to make me visibly irritated. That is not easy to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I disagree strongly.

1) Just because someone says that you are wrong, does not mean they are attacking you personally. I am told by the compiler dozens of times every day that I am wrong, but I do not believe that the compiler is attacking me personally. I've had beta testers reporting thousands of bugs in the game - where for one reason or another "I've done something wrong". That is not an attack on me personally.

2) The number of times you have said something that was incorrect in the forum is not a small number. But rarely have you posted, "oh yeah, I got that wrong."

3) This is just one case. You asked Cad908 "Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?" If you had bothered to look at his post, you would have seen that he has had over 1000 posts. Conclusion: your statement about his posts was wrong. But that seems to be a very difficult thing for you to admit.

4) Instead you change the subject so the argument goes in another direction (e.g., about beta testers posting to the open forum).

You see, you could have stated to Cad908 something like: "I haven't seen a lot of posts by you." That would have been an objective statement and non-aggressive. It would have opened the door for him to reply factually. That's not your style though is it?

5) As for your statement: "You know I will if he will.", that made me laugh. Years ago I decided that you appear to believe you have 'WON' any discussion/argument if you made the last post. Regardless of how convoluted a position you have to take (e.g., arguing about grammar and syntax in rules) to justify your opinion, you just keep going and going.

---

And yes, you have managed to make me visibly irritated. That is not easy to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I disagree strongly.

1) Just because someone says that you are wrong, does not mean they are attacking you personally. I am told by the compiler dozens of times every day that I am wrong, but I do not believe that the compiler is attacking me personally. I've had beta testers reporting thousands of bugs in the game - where for one reason or another "I've done something wrong". That is not an attack on me personally.

2) The number of times you have said something that was incorrect in the forum is not a small number. But rarely have you posted, "oh yeah, I got that wrong."

3) This is just one case. You asked Cad908 "Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?" If you had bothered to look at his post, you would have seen that he has had over 1000 posts. Conclusion: your statement about his posts was wrong. But that seems to be a very difficult thing for you to admit.

4) Instead you change the subject so the argument goes in another direction (e.g., about beta testers posting to the open forum).

You see, you could have stated to Cad908 something like: "I haven't seen a lot of posts by you." That would have been an objective statement and non-aggressive. It would have opened the door for him to reply factually. That's not your style though is it?

5) As for your statement: "You know I will if he will.", that made me laugh. Years ago I decided that you appear to believe you have 'WON' any discussion/argument if you made the last post. Regardless of how convoluted a position you have to take (e.g., arguing about grammar and syntax in rules) to justify your opinion, you just keep going and going.

---

And yes, you have managed to make me visibly irritated. That is not easy to do.

quote:

For more information see:

Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss ~ Stanford University, California

Probability, Physics, and the coin toss by L. Maahadevan and Ee Hou Yong ~ Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts

quote:

Will you admit you are wrong in posting statistics can be used in predicting the odds?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cad908


The "poorly written formula" you describe is a pretty simple probability distribution not unlike flipping a coin twice. The expected outcomes from that experiment are:

25% TWO Heads
25% TWO Tails
50% ONE Head and ONE Tail

because each event (Head or Tail) has a 50% probability. I hope we can agree on that.

I have posted several times in this forum, though in different threads. My profession is corporate finance so I do not write software for a living. Though, for the life of me, I cannot see what that has to do with the probability distribution we have been discussing. Also, for what it is worth, I have been beta testing MWiF during the last 2 1/2 years.

quote:

(Turn 1) Adding a USA entry chit for Search and Seizure
The first occurrence of a 10-sided die roll
(I multiply by the formulae by number of occurrences because it's easier to read than showing the same formula adding the same values twice).
Set Occurrence to 1

((Outcome A * Outcome B) *Occurrence) /100 or (((80 * 20) * 1) /100) = 0.16 or 16% Succeeds once

((Outcome B * Occurrence) /100) or ((20 * 1) /100) = 0.002 or .2% Succeeds twice

Since the outcome cannot exceed 100% and what doesn't succeed fails. Add the "Succeeds once" and "Succeeds twice" values and subtract from 100.

100 - (16% + 1%) = 83.8% Fails

You might note in the first occurrence when using this set of formulae for 10-sided die rolls statistically you: succeed once 16%, succeed twice .2%, and fail 83.8%. Rounding the results to the nearest percent the results come to: succeed once 16%, and fail 84%.


(Turn 2) Adding a USA entry chit for Search and Seizure
The second occurrence of a 10-sided die roll
Set Occurrence to 2

((Outcome A * Outcome B) * Occurrence) /100) or (((80 * 20) * 2) /100) = 0.32 or 32% Succeeds once

((Outcome B * Occurrence) /100) or ((20 * 2) /100) = 0.04 or 4% Succeeds twice

Since the outcome cannot exceed 100% and what doesn't succeed fails. Add the "Succeeds once" and "Succeeds twice" values and subtract from 100.

100 - (32% + 4%) = 67.6% Fails

quote:

( (Turn 1) Adding USA entry chit for Search and Seizure:
The first occurrence of a 10-sided die roll:
Set Occurrence to 1

((Outcome A * Outcome B) * Occurrence) /100 or (((80 * 20) * 1) /100) = 0.16 or 16% Succeeds once

((Outcome B * Occurrence) /100) or ((20 * 1) /100) = 0.002 or 0.2% Succeeds twice

Since the outcome cannot exceed 100% I'm going to add the "Succeeds once" and "Succeeds twice" values and subtract from 100.

100 - (16% + 0.2 %) = 83.8% Fails

Rounding the results to the nearest percent the results come to: succeed once 16%, and fail 84%.


(Turn 2)
The second occurrence of a 10-sided die roll "Weather roll"
The third occurrence of a 10-sided die roll "Initiative roll #1"
The forth occurrence of a 10-sided die roll "Initiative roll #2"
The fifth occurrence of a 10-sided die roll "The end of turn roll"

The sixth occurrence of a 10-sided die roll
Adding a USA entry chit for Search and Seizure
Set Occurrence to 6

((Outcome A * Outcome B) * Occurrence) /100 or (((80 * 20) * 6) /100) = 0.96 or 96% Succeeds once

((Outcome D * Occurrence) /100) or ((20 * 6) /100) = 0.012 or 1.2% Succeeds twice

Since the outcome cannot exceed 100% and what doesn't succeed fails. Add the "Succeeds once" and "Succeeds twice" values and subtract from 100.

(100 - (96% + 1.2%)) = 2.8% Fails

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


- the amount of resources you can block.

removing 5 BP early in the game. are worth 10 or 20 in the late game or more.

the million BP usa have from late game is worthless. anything build after middle 1944 wont reach the map, or if it reach the map, it will not have time to be used extensively.

quote:


((Outcome B * Occurrence) /100) or ((20 + 20) /100) = 0.002 or .2% Succeeds twice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Easo79

Just in case your sleep might be disturbed by the Stanford study cited some posts above, on the dynamics of a flying coin, I anticipate you the conclusions of that said study: "For tossed coins, the classical assumptions of independence with probability 1/2 are pretty solid" (page 27).

It is a pleasure to confirm the correctness of your calculations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I would also like to comment that World in Flames can not be analyzed the way old Avalon Hill classics were, where the opening move for each side can be sliced and diced ad infinitum to figure out every way to gain an advantage moving on to the later turns. Those games were much more operational in nature, even when on a grand strategic level such as Victory in the Pacific.

World in Flames is much more like a water balloon. Squeeze one part of it, and it bulges out somewhere else. Set-ups and the first turn are important, but small tweaks to them aren't that big a deal. Or, moving the pieces is important, but actual strategic decisions, such as when to declare war and other major decisions, are a level of magnitude more important than small tactical advantages gained by what the player makes the units on the map actually do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

=*=*=*=*= Apology Alert =*=*=*=*=

Oh magnificent Neilster I have erred in your sight. Forgive this unworthy worm his insolence and effrontery for having the unmitigated gall to incur your displeasure by submitting something so blasphemous in your eyes. There is no forgiveness for such a base mistake. I will have myself scourged! I will abase myself as I kowtow before you! I tear my hair and rend my garments at the thought of your displeasure. I will sacrifice a bullock on the alter of penance to you for my misjudgment. Please forgive this most humble of insignificant slimes his transgression.

Neilster tasks me. Neilster tasks me and I shall fix this problem! I'll chase it 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give it up!

=*=*=*=*= Apology Alert =*=*=*=*=

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

It is the great strength of the game. The tactics and operational flow of the war are very important, and an enjoyable part of the game. And occasionally they intersect with grand strategy in dramatic ways, as they should. And overlaying it all is the grand strategy layer, dictating the theater operations which then set up the hex-by-hex tactics. You have to be good at all 3 to do well playing this game. This is why the game has had such a long shelf life for so many players, and why we all hang out here, cheering on an edition of the game that looks to be the most playable version ever.


For Cado98's question, in that case as Germany I would still invade Denmark but would lay off Belgium for sure. This might also stay some of my decisions in the Balkans as well. Particularly in MWiF where 5 chits in the Euro pool might easily be an even higher value than 14. But then I never attack Belgium in 1939, preferring the WWI style campaign of brute force stacks in the spring of 1940; maximizing 2d10 mods helps a lot there.

Italy always has to watch it's back starting at set-up, regardless of the first few US Entry rolls. Many Allied players would easily trade a chit for a decent shot at greatly reducing Italy's overseas options for a year or so.

But as we are rambling around in the French AI thread, I can't generally think of a situation where it pays for the Allies to have a French-only DoW on Italy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

You could start by learning arithmetic. It'll be difficult to learn probability until you can do arithmetic.

Edit: I agree with paulderynck. You really should seek professional help.

This may help too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

Neilster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

The ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

The ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes

There is absolutely no need for "equally likely" to be in that definition. Those who know probability are aware of this. Those who cut and paste from the top search result's definition are not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

I would like to request a more polite tone from all (even though some need it more) to ensure less misunderstandings and hatred. I think no one has 100% right in the recent discussion (even though some has the most right). We all have a love for WIF/MWIF and please lets get back to the AI and se what we can do to improve it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

You could start by learning arithmetic. It'll be difficult to learn probability until you can do arithmetic.

Edit: I agree with paulderynck. You really should seek professional help.

This may help too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

Neilster

Is my apology excepted or not? You could start by being more polite.



I thought we were talking about statistics.

A branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data


Not probability.

The ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes

Are you trying to change the subject?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Neilster and paulderynck question my mental health outright. To discredit any posts I have made or will make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Neilster questions my ability to learn math. Did he check my formulae? Did he check the results? No he attacked the editing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Steve says I have no experiences I have read it all somewhere. According to him I've been wrong more than right and choose to bully others by posting until the others give up in disgust and I get my way.