AI for MWiF - France

[Easo79]

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.

[Extraneous]

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.

(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.

( (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%.

[Centuur]

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...

[Neilster]

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

This is just the first thing I noticed [:D]

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

[brian brian]

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.

[Cad908]

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

[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.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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).

[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.

[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 =*=*=*=*=

[Neilster]

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 ... nce_People

Neilster

[Centuur]

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? [:D]
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...

[Extraneous]

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 ... nce_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?

[paulderynck]

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.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

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?

[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.

[Extraneous]

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.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

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 ... nce_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

[Neilster]

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.

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%.

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

[CrusssDaddy]

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?