Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Be good to have data on round, turn, territory, economic damage roll (if bomber survived), whether game is casual, ranked, or vs AI, and if casual/ranked who the participating players are, exactly. Also total IPC value of units of each power at the time the SBR is initiated. As much of that as you care to do.
Nice idea. I believe a lot of criticism of the game comes immediately following what Poker players would call a "bad beat" meaning a situation where the expected outcome of a play doesn't occur resulting in a loss. The emotional response to such outcomes, even when unexpected outcome occurs as often as they should expect, can lead to bad decisions as well as unwarranted criticism. Your solution is a useful way to help manage that tendency.
1 - 2 bombers, 4 damage
2 - 1 bomber, 4 damage
3 - 1 bomber, 5 damage
4 - 2 bombers, 1 shot down, 2 damage
5 - 2 bombers, 7 damage
6 - 2 bombers, 4 damage
7 - 2 bombers, 8 damage
8 - 2 bombers, 9 damage
9 - 1 bomber, 3 damage
I started doing this out of caution from what others were saying on here. I was hearing so much slack about bombers getting shot down, I wanted to decide if I should stop bombing. I decided if I was going to change my tactics I wanted it to be based on facts I'm experiencing rather than things I read on here.
I don't claim to be an expert at statistics. I feel I'm ahead of where I should be. I'm 14 for 15 surviving. 15 bombers, I should have lost 2.5 and have only lost 1. I've done 46 damage with 15 bombers, averaging 3.07 IPCs per bomber. 3.29 IPCs of damage per surviving bomber.
unofficial theme song of 1942 Online
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-V43ThIOU5xVYfgfsaMpEk1BAt0vZ6q6_dUAhS7wBfE/edit?usp=sharing
(edit - most data is on second tab)
this is my post-it for my 6 June 2020 game vs AI
i am not proud
planning a nice long section in an accompanying writeup about how, precisely, the data gathered in that spreadsheet is completely inadequate to addressing many concerns, including SBR bias.
==
Following not @sirhahnsirhahn in particular, it just happened to post after he replied.
Look yeah? Let's not be vague (edit - about dismissing complaints about RNG). If we are vague, let's acknowledge the other vague things and everyone can be vague together.
Some player says they have a 1% result? Sure. It happens. But what do we really know? Should we simply dismiss that report?
What if what set off the poster reporting the 1% result wasn't really complaining because of the 1% result of itself, but because they got a 1% result in a game full of 2%, 12%, and 18% type dice results?
So if what do we accomplish by going to vague-town alone? Someone else doesn't know what they're talking about? Well what do they say, naturally? They respond that no YOU don't know what you're talking about. And that's how the conversation goes.
So if there are vague rejoinders that don't have really good math backing things up - let's acknowledge the validity of other complaints as well. Because, again, we really don't know.
==
Something I keep mentioning is reasoned discussion and scientific methods using mathematics. At one point, monkeys in Africa were thought to be wild made-up tales. Women were said to be incapable of rational thought. Tomatoes were thought to be incredibly poisonous. This was the accepted wisdom in some places at some times. Without pointing fingers at anyone in particular (everyone's guilty of it assuming to some degree, including myself) - it's no better today.
But rather than *accept* that is how it should be, we should be looking into these things. Or if not actively looking, at least *acknowledging* that the answer *isn't* as simple as dismissing viewpoints different to our own, that if we really want to draw conclusions that others can trust, we need *data* and *reasoning* to back up one position or another.
Oh, I'm no expert either. But some stuff to chew on:
Suppose a player says Axis bombers get shot down more by IC AA than normal. Your data can't evaluate that at all. It won't even necessarily show up as a bump in your count, because what if Allied bombers also get shot down *less* by IC AA than normal? The system can be horribly horribly biased but your tests won't detect it at all if your data simply doesn't include what's needed to evaluate that hypothesis.
Of course, that's not all there is to it. Here, I'll give you another bit. Say you look at above and say "oh, well I should separate Axis and Allies data then shouldn't I", then you stop there.
Say I knew that only coarse detection methods were being used. Don't you think I would manipulate the system to have good results for me in the battles that count, and bad results in the battles that don't? I wouldn't mind losing a bit of German control over some territory in Europe temporarily if I have a couple early tanks in Africa. Chunk more income, I buy more units in Europe, push Europe, and nothing's suspicious anywhere, all the dice look "normal".
There's a lot more, oh yes. But then, you're not talking about your data being used to address anyone else's concerns. So that'll do to be getting on with.
Most battles are at least 3 or 4 rounds long. If you started the battle with an 80% chance of winning, in order to get to that horrific conclusion that had only a 1% chance of happening, at some point the attack went downhill. Battles don't go from 80% to 1% in one round of rolls. After the first round of rolls went bad, your probability of success probably went down to 40%. You then continued the attack, which at that point had a higher chance of turning bad than good. After round 2 of the dice your odds may have dropped to 10%. What are you thinking at this point? Are you still thinking that at the beginning of the attack you had an 80% chance of success, so you should continue rolling because the odds say it should turn around for you? Thats not how it works.
I've gotten burned a few times where I have pushed things too far and I have been slapped by a result that had a 1% likelihood of happening. Afterward, I certainly don't blame the dice. I blame myself for letting my emotions get away from me and for not making better decisions and retreating to fight another day.
To those of you who post that you've been slammed by the dice and repeatedly experience the 1% result, PLEASE - next time it happens, break down the battle for us. Tell us what happened each round. I'm thinking at some point in the battle, there was a point where you should have decided back off and live to fight another day. Instead you log on here and claim that theres a problem with the dice and the developers need to fix it...
I can emphasize with the weak German AA :)))
pizza
why is it running
because we have to chase it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c_H45kt1_8
(It's a running joke between me and sirhahnsirhahn. In context I'm saying that hypothetical isn't actually what's happening at all, but that I don't expect discussing the details is necessary. Here. As I'm replying to him.)
But I think you shouldn't support what sirhahnsirhahn wrote. Because I think he's wrong.
You know I try to make a point of acknowledging the validity of what others write. I say who's to know the context, even if what they're saying doesn't make sense on many levels, if you look at it this way then it makes sense - and the cutting edge of what I write is dulled. But I do so as I think it necessary to reasoned discourse. Rarely do I write (or believe) that someone is outright *wrong*. Usually it's really just a matter of context.
But in this case - sirhahnsirhahn is wrong. (Or I am). But why? I don't say it lightly.
First, let's acknowledge - if you *assume* certain conditions, that sirhahnsirhahn is *right*. But understand he frames the case with the hypothetical that players are mashing the "attack" button unthinkingly. That's a problem.
If you start with the premise that players aren't behaving rationally, you have a nice circular argument. Others are not rational. Therefore they are not valid. They are null and void, their complaints are null and void. The end.
But what if you do NOT start with that premise that players are mashing "attack" unthinkingly? Because you SHOULD NOT. 1% results happen to reasoning, rational players that are making CORRECT decisions.
If the discussion is developing, we need to understand there's a context in which players are just mashing attack, and a context in which they ARE NOT.
1) 1% off the bat. You think 1% results can't happen *in the first round*? I've had less than 1% results RIGHT off the bat with 5 out of 6 air shot down by AA fire. Only six dice involved, less than 1% results. It happens, that's the mathematics of it. And I've done games with 60+ dice per side on stack battles. The outcome breakdowns on those allow for much more finer distinctions than simply 1%.
So why *wouldn't* 1% results happen? Because . . . they can't? We just got done with taking down straw men, let's not set up new ones.
So sure, you have situations in which someone's got, say 6 dice overall in a battle and someone's mashing attack . . . they get a 1% . . . we know as just described that's not always the case . . . but . . . sometimes . . .
But no!
2) Have you forgotten amphibious attacks? Your ability to retreat is restricted!
But what if we're not TALKING about an amphibious attack? I mean . . . it happens . . .
3) Think about this.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=5&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=1&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
Suppose you're fighting for control of a territory to stop a tank blitz. Or you're fighting for control of Caucasus, which can shut off an opponent's ability to put 4 units there, or if you maintain control may allow you to put 4 units there.
So you have a 5 on 1 infantry battle. The odds are good. They are!
But let's say you lose an infantry. Woops, it's 4 on 1. Not as good. But still good? Still good.
You lose another infantry. 3 on 1. Not great. But still quite decent.
Go again. 2 on 1. You still have better than even odds of capturing the territory. It's still a favorable attack.
Happens again. 1 on 1. You can't allocate any additional units to the battle. A single infantry won't make or break your defensive forces, you already allocated what you thought you could afford to spare to the battle. Simply, tactically, if you retreat you gain practically nothing, if you press on and win then the tactical gains are HUGE. So you press on.
AND YOU LOSE.
And there's your 1% right there. And there's variations of that, but you get the idea.
4) Sequential attacks. Suppose you have a UK attack against Germany to try to take their capital that MAY succeed but its pretty dicey. But you also have a US attack and a Russia attack to follow up. Which I think literally happened on UK5 of my 6 June 2020 game thread (shameless plug). Though I'll mention normally (though not in that game) you have to calculate for Japanese reinforcements.
Anyways - when you have those battles, it's often all-in If you have bad results on the UK attack, you don't wimp out, because any casualties you can inflict change your odds on the US followup. And if you get bad dice on US you don't wimp out either. Because you want the odds for Russia.
And let's just tidy up after that mutterer in the corner - it doesn't *necessarily* work out that way. Sometimes the balance of the game is such that you can step back, sometimes it's just not. But again, you can see, there's this situation in which you can do the attack, not get good results, and need to press on for larger reasons. It doesn't have to be a capital shot, it can play out that way for positional stack battles and so on.
So again and again, you get cases in which players are acting correctly and rationally, yet losing these 1% battles, because *that's just how it works*.
Maybe more examples I can't think of offhand but that'll do to be getting on with.
==
In concluding - look. I don't want to make a point of whoever being wrong or whatever. But in point of fact, this thread was developing the discussion to the point that players that receive 1% odds were being characterized as being irrational. We're getting a poster writing about report bias, another poster asking why players keep mashing attack, and the rational reasons why 1% DOES happen for RATIONAL reasons simply were not being acknowledged of mentioned, much less validated.
That's what was happening.
Well here we are, discussing the validity of those reporting 1% results. Because it DID go into addressing others' concerns. That's how it goes.
Exactly what I do, keeping a Post It, and that is where I came up with the 45% of my bombers getting shot down. I have now played over 50 games, but only started recording this recently. Have you noticed the ridiculous misses on bombardments or that Defenders seem to have a clear advantage with their rolls? Clearly this game has "loaded" dice, the odds I mentioned are unbelievable, yet consistent with the game. Again, eliminating any strategy and taking away from the enjoyment of the game. I understand a streak of bad luck, but after 50+ games I am noticing a clear pattern.
Consider:
Assuming 1% is irrational assumes ignorance. Assuming 1% is rational assumes knowledge. Both require assumption, but the positions are not equal. Ignorance can change to knowledge, but not the other way around.
That would not be an issue if the discussion were sharply defined. But you KNOW discussions never stay sharply defined - not in real life, and not on Steam discussion forums.
So if you say that you're simply talking about the practical case and what you think and what I'd guess to be the case that *most* 1% reports are probably a result of improper player action - I'd say all right, then let's talk about the practical case and agree that discussions don't stay sharply defined.
So what happens when discussions don't stay sharply defined? As I wrote, positions get distorted and the validity of the other positions aren't acknowledged.
And don't think I'm not aware of the elephant in the room.
WHY IS THE VALIDITY OF PLAYERS RECEIVING 1% RESULTS BEING QUESTIONED IN THE FIRST PLACE?
When the tone of discussion is that someone needs to JUSTIFY themselves, that sets the tone for the power dynamics of the conversation. You do not ask your superior to justify themselves. Only inferiors need *justify* themselves to others. Even if you say equals sometimes need justify themselves, think on it - when an "equal" does something terribly stupid, they demonstrate inferiority and are inferiors in the context that justification is discussed.
The above does not set a tone for discussion between equals. Go on, say it does . . . JUSTIFY yourself.
No?
Right, I don't think there's a need for that in a discussion between equals. We can both just have a slice of pizza and leave it at that.
And while we're having our pizza - we probably agree most 1% report results *are* coming from players doing tactically incorrect actions so you're right in that sense, yet we can also agree I'm right that we do need to be sure the discussion isn't framed that way.