Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AI for MWiF - France

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: AI for MWiF - France Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/20/2013 10:58:34 PM   
Easo79


Posts: 100
Joined: 7/12/2013
From: Mallorca, Illes Balears
Status: offline
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.


Ah, yes. I meant, of course, when it is finished, if it is finished before the game itself is complete. One problem with the rules I am reading is that sometimes there are references to physical entities I do not own. For instance, the discussion on entry markers (or the initiative markers) is somewhat exoteric if one has never seen one. Is it a card... is it something like a Monopoly token...? so I am happy if the Game Manual begins from scratch and correctly assumes that there are users that are new to this game, and even to wargames in general (e.g. I have learnt what the numbers on the counters represent by the Tutorials in this forum, not by the rules).

(Sorry for hijacking this thread)

< Message edited by Easo79 -- 7/20/2013 10:59:40 PM >

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 391
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/21/2013 2:24:21 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1831
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
Wargames are a vintage/pulp thing these days.


Extraneous, do you want to just play a game of World in Flames? I'll play you, but I only use CyberBoard. It would be a slow motion game as I am pretty busy, and don't have time to learn Vassal. You pick sides. All optional rules in play, to keep it simple in terms of picking which ones. There are a few I've never played but it would be fun to force myself to experience. Playing World in Flames is infinitely more educational than theorizing about World in Flames.


Otherwise, pretty much every strategy in the game is already contained in all these AI threads, and that is a big reason there isn't much response to trying up to drum up another re-hash of them. I would think they would take days and days to read them all at this point; there is a lot of very interesting things in them and I have learned lots here over the years. Then it would take weeks and weeks longer to experiment with the strategies already described on this forum over the years via a solitaire game.

I just won a large bid which means no WiFCon for me this year, bummer. It was starting to look like a good possibility for me too.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 392
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/21/2013 7:31:59 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

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.



1)I agree someone saying that you are wrong, does not mean they are attacking you personally.

Saying you should not be posting does.


2) Saying "Thank you" or "Thanks" when an error is pointed out isn't good enough?


3) Cad908 making 1,000+ posts on the Matrix forums does not mean 1,000+ posts on the MWiF forums.

I did a search on Author: "Cad908" Search in forum: "World in Flames" he has a total of 17 posts.

My 2,000+ posts are only on the MWiF forums.


4) I never changed the subject I asked a beta tester a question.

To stimulate interest in the game and with their unique insight why do the beta testers refuse to support the game in the forums?


5) I'm glad you got a good laugh.

Arguing about Grammar and syntax? Are you still going on about that? I did just as you told me to and quit posting on that thread completely.


No I don't consider this winning but with this post I do have to point out your misconceptions.




_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 393
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/21/2013 7:34:01 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

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.



1)I agree someone saying that you are wrong, does not mean they are attacking you personally. Saying you should not be posting does.


2) Saying "Thank you" or "Thanks" when an error is pointed out isn't good enough?


3) Cad908 making 1,000+ posts on the Matrix forums does not mean 1,000+ posts on the MWiF forums.

I did a search on Author: "Cad908" Search in forum: "World in Flames" he has a total of 17 posts.

My 2,000+ posts are only on the MWiF forums.


4) I never changed the subject I asked a beta tester a question.

To stimulate interest in the game and with their unique insight why do the beta testers refuse to support the game in the forums?


5) I'm glad you got a good laugh.

Arguing about Grammar and syntax? Are you still going on about that? I did just as you told me to and quit posting on that thread completely.


No I don't consider this winning with this post but I do have to point out your misconceptions.



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 394
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/21/2013 7:35:23 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
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.



1)I agree someone saying that you are wrong, does not mean they are attacking you personally.

Saying you should not be posting does.


2) Saying "Thank you" or "Thanks" when an error is pointed out isn't good enough?


3) Cad908 making 1,000+ posts on the Matrix forums does not mean 1,000+ posts on the MWiF forums.

I did a search on Author: "Cad908" Search in forum: "World in Flames" he has a total of 17 posts.

My 2,000+ posts are only on the MWiF forums.


4) I never changed the subject I asked a beta tester a question.

To stimulate interest in the game and with their unique insight why do the beta testers refuse to support the game in the forums?


5) I'm glad you got a good laugh.

Arguing about Grammar and syntax? Are you still going on about that? I did just as you told me to and quit posting on that thread completely.


No I don't consider this winning with this post but I do have to point out your misconceptions.



< Message edited by Extraneous -- 7/21/2013 7:36:22 AM >


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 395
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 2:54:37 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
When was the last time any of you admitted I was right instead of just quitting posting?


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

paulderynck Post# 360

Shannon V. OKeets Post# 361

Cad908 Post# 370

Neilster Post# 380


Will you admit you are wrong in posting the coin toss as a statistics example when it's physics example:

Cad908 Post# 377

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






_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 396
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 4:04:11 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4674
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Yeah I should have said: in 1939 the chance for the USA to get at least one extra chit is 36%.

Edit - and BTW, you really do need to seek professional help.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/22/2013 4:07:39 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 397
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 10:14:26 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

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


I posted no such thing. I accused you of not understanding basic Probability, which you clearly don't.

Neilster

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 398
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 1:00:33 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1437
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: online
The question for the AIO is when shall I do a "Size & Search?" The risk of the US entering the war a turn earlier and the effect on their build points over they take various US Entry Options earlier) and the gain of hurting France or the Commonwealth of a few resources/production points early in the war.
For me the answer is the general almost never. Exceptions could be:
- Only to mess with US DOWs tries, very risky.
- When desperat/bold to turn the tide and tipping the balance, axis close to sucsses/stuck.
- When the chit values are low/known.


_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 399
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 4:37:32 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4018
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: online

- 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.

_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 400
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 5:47:25 PM   
Easo79


Posts: 100
Joined: 7/12/2013
From: Mallorca, Illes Balears
Status: offline

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.




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.

(in reply to Cad908)
Post #: 401
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 6:42:16 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
Since percents are mostly an editing function to me. I choose to use whole numbers and then divide by 100 to get percentages. It also makes coding percentages stand out.

The common factor in this exercise is the 10-sided die roll. The formula will reset to the first occurrence after there is a successful in roll of a value of 20% or less. Outcome A is a constant of 80 and Outcome B is a constant of 20.


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


This works if and only if the first and second occurrences of a 10-sided die roll are back-to-back "Search and Seizure".



Which in this case is not true since there are other 10-sided die rolls that will be made before we can check again for "Search and Seizure".

You get a minimum of four additional 10-sided die rolls each turn i.e. a Weather roll, two Initiative rolls, and end of turn roll.

Note: this is just minimum number of rolls to show the impact of additional dice rolls. It is not important at this time if it is allowable under the game rules.


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



On the seventh occurrence of a 10-sided die roll using this set of formulae statistically you: succeed once 112%, succeed twice 1%, and fail -13%.




< Message edited by Extraneous -- 7/23/2013 9:51:21 AM >


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Easo79)
Post #: 402
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 7:47:50 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3703
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online

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.

True. The US should concentrate on building offensive chits after middle 1944 (2 or even 3 a turn), naval repairs, convoys and the trading of build points towards the CW and the USSR who have countries close or on the frontlines and can build lots of units who arrive on the front line in time, because they don't need to be transported overseas...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 403
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 7:52:24 PM   
Neilster


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:


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


This is just the first thing I noticed

How does multiplication become an addition? Also ((20 + 20) /100) = 40/100 = 0.4

Even if it is meant to be multiplied... ((20 * 20) /100) = 400/100 = 4

What are you on about?

Neilster

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 404
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 8:30:44 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1831
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
I've never bothered to learn statistics or probability. I just move the pieces and roll the dice. But I do know that rolling a 2 for the weather has zero influence on how many times you might roll a 2 doing a Search & Seizure. That is very basic. Dice can often be streaky, and anything can happen on them.

The odds, percentages, chances, whatever you want to call it, of the USA pulling a chit are only part of any equation here. The chits in 1939 are of higher value, much higher than in 1940. They are of even higher potential value in MWiF, where having a '4' and a '5' chit sitting in the Ge/USSR border pact pools doesn't matter. The US can draw a 4 or 5 every time it draws in MWiF in 1939.

Neither are the amount of BPs the USA has in 1945 very relevant. What matters is what turns they gear up on. Each turn earlier is a larger amount of units facing the Axis in 1943 and 1944, when the game is decided. Each of those turns of US Entry is worth far more to each side than crimping western Allied BPs by a couple points in the first few turns. If I had an Axis opponent who I knew wanted to do trivial search & seizure rolls in 1939, I'd egg it on any way I could by running convoys right past Italy. Albeit, not very well loaded ones, cuz 80% of the time the USA wouldn't notice. A most interesting case would be an Italo/French naval struggle in the Cape St. Vincent sea area. I'd probably risk the French resources at stake for a chance to attrition the Italian navy using the French. But I would just never expect an experienced opponent to do Italian Search & Seizure actions anyway.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 405
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 9:06:54 PM   
Cad908

 

Posts: 1300
Joined: 10/9/2009
Status: offline
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.

Easo,

Thank you very much, though, quite honestly, I was not really worried about it. Hopefully you did not spend (waste) your time on my account.

It is rather funny in that the last Global War scenario I was testing with Net Play, I had a real outlier with US Entry. I placed all 3 of the initial US markers against Germany/Italy.

After Germany declared war on Poland, the roll was a 1 which resulted in 2 markers drawn against Germany/Italy.
When the CW declared war on Germany in its first impulse, the roll was a 10, which meant no markers were removed against Germany/Italy
Finally, when the USSR occupied East Poland, the roll was a 9, which again meant no markers were removed against Germany/Italy

Germany, starting its second impulse, was looking at 5 US Entry markers. The odds of this are something like:

German DOW on Poland 80% 1 marker, 20% 2 markers
CW DOW on Germany - 90% remove 1 marker, 10% remove 0 markers
USSR occupies East Poland - 70% remove 1 marker, 30% remove 0 markers

20% * 10% * 30% = 0.6% or 6 chances in a 1,000.

The markers, IIRC, were something like 3,2,2,1,1 which yields 14 versus German/Italy and 5 against Japan.

Given this situation:

Should Germany curtail any aggressive actions for the balance of 1939, ie no Denmark or Belgium, and wait for the lower markers in 1940?

Should Italy start to watch its back? This seems to be an ideal setup for an early Commonwealth/French strike against it.

As discussed by previous posters, US Entry is a key driver in their decision process. Certainly the AI will need to do the same.

The test sequence did yield a bug in Net Play, so not a total waste of time.

-Rob



< Message edited by Cad908 -- 7/22/2013 9:07:50 PM >

(in reply to Easo79)
Post #: 406
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/22/2013 9:44:04 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1831
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
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.

(in reply to Cad908)
Post #: 407
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 12:28:16 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 19281
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.

I mostly agree with you about MWIF. As always there are exceptions, where a bad tactical decision can have long term consequences (e.g., control of Gibraltar, Leningrad, and Paris, destruction of transports/marines/HQs).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 408
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 2:27:33 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1831
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
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.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 409
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 9:52:28 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
=*=*=*=*= 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 =*=*=*=*=



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 410
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 10:18:10 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
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 =*=*=*=*=



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



< Message edited by Neilster -- 7/23/2013 10:24:42 AM >

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 411
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 2:34:44 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3703
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
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.

I don't know how I would respond when this would happen. Perhaps start over again?
I think my reaction would be: "screw US entry". Let's see if the Axis can get it as high as possible before tension grows. So I would be as aggressive as possible and let Italy DoW France and the CW seperately, throw in two axis DoW's on Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands. Let US entry go sky high... I only see 5 chits and they might be very, very bad to me already (some 4's might be in there). So let's see if I can get the US to go over the top here and make sure the US needs a lot of tension too...
So let's make fun as long as the weather holds... Dangerous tactic? Yes, but I'm screwed already as the Euroaxis...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 7/23/2013 2:37:36 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 412
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 5:42:02 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 413
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 6:39:52 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4674
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 414
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 8:24:53 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

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.


You will have to take your complaint to Dictionary and Thesaurus Merriam-Webster Online


I've played nice with you thugs and Steve reprimands me?

When ya gonna do something Steve?

Or did Steve and all of you get together and plan this in the beta forums?



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 415
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/23/2013 9:05:52 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1437
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: online
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.

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 416
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/24/2013 1:56:01 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1683
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

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.


Oh but no one hates anyone here just ask them.

I have tried to keep it civil. It doesn't work here.

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. He brings up an issue that could easily been handled by the yahoo group (who make the decisions on the rules). But instead shuts down the discussion. Because someone posted the rule was so obvious there was no need to contact the yahoo group.

paulderynck will even dispute the dictionary just to be insulting.

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

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

Centuur probably hasn't jumped in yet only because the others are beating him to posting.


I applaud your attempt a peacemaking. But with all the others piling on there is no fence to straddle.



This is day one waiting for Steve's reply.


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 417
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/24/2013 5:39:01 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

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?


You mean that ridiculous, supercilious, mock apology? It wasn't an apology. I don't care anyway. That was polite and you have an incredible gall accusing others of being impolite, considering you have already been warned about your behaviour.

You weren't discussing statistics but rather probability. Steve mentioned statistics because probability is often included in large statistics courses and he has taught such a course.

So no, I'm not trying to change the subject.

Neilster

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 418
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/24/2013 6:01:14 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2294
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

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

I can't speak for him but I did it because you sound unbalanced and you clearly have trouble getting along with people.

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.

The first thing I checked indicated that you can't do arithmetic (see post above). It's not my fault if you can't type or edit.

As for your formulae, your written expression is so poor, I can't fathom what you are talking about. For example, "Since percents are mostly an editing function to me." is not a sentence and I have no idea what it means.

Allied with your demonstrated lack of understanding of probability and inability to do arithmetic, your formulae are worthless.

Then there are statements like, "On the seventh occurrence of a 10-sided die roll using this set of formulae statistically you: succeed once 112%, succeed twice 1%, and fail -13%.", which make no mathematical sense whatsoever.

I assume you are talking about probabilities, which are generally expressed as values in the range 0 to 1 inclusive, but even if one wants to use percentages, all of the possible outcomes should sum to 100% and none should be below 0% and none above 100%.

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.

I agree with him.

Neilster

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 419
RE: AI for MWiF - France - 7/24/2013 5:47:56 PM   
CrusssDaddy

 

Posts: 246
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline
I think a lot of the rancor can be dissipated if you all simply realize you are operating at cross purposes. Extraneous seems to be interested in developing an appealing computer version of the World in Flames game. Steve is interested in filling his remaining golden years with a task that is structured if not purposeful or with resolution, like bird watching. Everyone else is an enabler of Steve.

Now that I have illuminated you is it not easier to understand your differing points of view?

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 420
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: AI for MWiF - France Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.746