Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
---

Here's how the odds for the land combat tables are explained in the Players Manual.

Is that a scan of your overused and aging printed manual, or is it that the Player Manual PDF has been created with that cool, pulp, vintage appearance?

ORIGINAL: Easo79

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
---

Here's how the odds for the land combat tables are explained in the Players Manual.

Is that a scan of your overused and aging printed manual, or is it that the Player Manual PDF has been created with that cool, pulp, vintage appearance?

The latter.

ORIGINAL: Neilster

1) 80% is 80 divided by 100, which is 0.8. Extraneous, all your above posts indicate no knowledge of probability and a pretty poor grasp of basic mathematics but you lash out and blame others for your ignorance.

2) Plenty of people have started posts about the game. I've started several but from memory they were some time ago. In short, you appear to have a very strange attitude and have trouble getting along with people.

Just in case you're wondering, I am a commercial programmer and achieved a perfect score for university probability

Neilster

Neilster do you receive all your programming assignments verbally?


1) And 100% is 1. You don't have to divide you can multiply by 0.01 its your choice.

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

Odds ~ the probability that one thing is so or will happen rather than another.



2) Post# 3253 June 7, 2013

If any of you are passionate about an aspect of the game (pro or con) start a thread let's all discuss it. If you are a member of the MWiF beta test it may be necessary get Steve's permission first.

Why haven't you posted something about the game since then?


My attitude? I'm shocked have you forgotten already or didn't you get the memo?

Its Extraneous hunting season.

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Cad908

1) 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:

2) 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.

3)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.

1) To a programmer you would be considered an "end user" to you the formula is simple and understandable. As a programmer it is a poorly written set of specifications.


Example:

Steve changed 80% to .8 and 20% to .2 unnecessaryly, with no reason, or instructions as to why.

I started multiplying 80 and 20 but didn't divide the result by 100 to get a percent (Outcome A * Outcome C) /100. I then thought this would probably confuse people since it wouldn't look like Steve's formula. The way a formula looks means a lot to people.

So I decided to submit my own example of the formula to make my point. But forgot that I needed to change the part of the document that I had been working on.


2) Statistically yes. But flipping coins is a bad example after the probability study on flipping coins disproved the statistics.

But the situation is not flipping coins we are rolling dice looking for a set of values.


3) Your profile shows only two posts on this forum since October 12, 2012.

Have you ever submitted specifications to your IT people for coding? They would probably explain that your computer has the comparable intelligence to that of a three-year-old human. You have to be specific with your instructions.

Two and a half years in the beta I'm glad to see they got some new people in there.


New business
You have suggested I cease posting advice on AI.

I have tried to get members of the beta to post on what they like about the game.

They have all refused.

One even posted he would rather flame people than post about the game.

Other than the "Best WWII movie?" thread there have been ZERO posts on the game not initiated by me.

I originally started this under a thread to discuss player global strategy. Steve moved this to the AI threads.


Since you are from Finance I would think the production aspect would be of interest to you. Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?

Back off on attacking other posters, especially when you know so little about them.[:-] Cad908's contribution to MWIF has been enormous. For instance, he has tested all the US Entry Options to make sure that code works. He has tested all possible land moves by all units types, in all weather, in all terrain, across all hexside terrain - and has proven that all that code works. He has extensively tested the Vichy France subphases. He has tested NetPlay as much as I have. I could add to this list, but I think I have made my point.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Back off on attacking other posters, especially when you know so little about them.[:-] Cad908's contribution to MWIF has been enormous. For instance, he has tested all the US Entry Options to make sure that code works. He has tested all possible land moves by all units types, in all weather, in all terrain, across all hexside terrain - and has proven that all that code works. He has extensively tested the Vichy France subphases. He has tested NetPlay as much as I have. I could add to this list, but I think I have made my point.

You know I will if he will.

Have you informed him about my contributions to the game?

Or are serving beta testers now immune to criticism?

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

New business
You have suggested I cease posting advice on AI.

I have tried to get members of the beta to post on what they like about the game.

They have all refused.

One even posted he would rather flame people than post about the game.

Other than the "Best WWII movie?" thread there have been ZERO posts on the game not initiated by me.

I originally started this under a thread to discuss player global strategy. Steve moved this to the AI threads.


Since you are from Finance I would think the production aspect would be of interest to you. Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?

To some extent, I think this is a fair question about what the beta team's role is, or should be, in the public forum. Here is what guides me on this subject:

1. I signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement which limits what I can say in the public forum. Various aspects of the program are covered by that agreement and I just will not comment on them.

2. I have a limited about of time available due to work and personal considerations. Because of this my choice has been to focus on Beta testing.

3. While I may not post much in the Public forum, I have been somewhat active in the Beta forum and in other ways. If you look at the production planning map from a couple of months ago, you will see that I was credited by Steve as the author. While I did the layout and editing, there was massive input from other Beta testers and it was very much a team effort. That was not a post per se, but a contribution?

4. Steve, via his monthly status reports, keeps this forum apprised as to the game's status. I have never seen this from any other developer, and really there is not much I could add to that discussion.

5. My experience with World in Flames is somewhat limited. Actually, I have never played a single impulse of the board game. I have a couple editions, two sets of maps and most of the counters - still unpunched. There is no way I could ever set this beast up in my apartment, let alone try it solo. I have played many computer games over the years, and was drawn to World in Flames by its reputation and the sheer audacity of what it does. Like many others, I followed Steve's posts and finally volunteered in March 2011. Given this, I really do not have much to add about the player's various strategic options within the game. I have learned the system, well some of it, through Beta testing and if Patrice, Paul, Peter, Michael, Orm, Lars, (et al) are saying something, it might be a good idea to listen.

6. The general tone of this forum often times is extremely negative bordering on toxic, or it seems that way to me. This is driven by frustration over the development time as is understandable. I agree, and think Steve would also, that it has taken to long. What can we say, or should we say, until there is a release date? I worry about the message being transmitted via these exchanges and if new members are getting turned off. I do not enjoy the negativity and, for the most part, therefore do not participate.

Again, these are just my views.

-Rob

The latter.

[X(] Nice!!

err...it would be so wonderful if there were a pre-release of the Manual...(at least a partial pre-release)[8|] 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

ORIGINAL: Easo79

The latter.

[X(] Nice!!

err...it would be so wonderful if there were a pre-release of the Manual...(at least a partial pre-release)[8|] 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.

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Back off on attacking other posters, especially when you know so little about them.[:-] Cad908's contribution to MWIF has been enormous. For instance, he has tested all the US Entry Options to make sure that code works. He has tested all possible land moves by all units types, in all weather, in all terrain, across all hexside terrain - and has proven that all that code works. He has extensively tested the Vichy France subphases. He has tested NetPlay as much as I have. I could add to this list, but I think I have made my point.

You know I will if he will.

Have you informed him about my contributions to the game?

Or are serving beta testers now immune to criticism?

I disagree strongly.

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.

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." 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. 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?

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.

ORIGINAL: Easo79

The latter.

[X(] Nice!!

err...it would be so wonderful if there were a pre-release of the Manual...(at least a partial pre-release)[8|] 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

Thanks.

I decided to not to try to rewrite RAW (ADG's Rules as Written) when I wrote RAC (MWIF's Rules as Coded). RAC is 98% the same as RAW. Correcting all the grammar and vagueness of RAW would have been a lot of work and would have run the risk of a change in wording changing the meaning of a rule. Instead I decided to write the Players Manual as a full explanation of how MWIF works. For example, Section 7 is 53 pages, a step by step progress through the sequence of play.

I expect to post a few more screenshots later this month in the thread the Printed Manual.

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: Easo79

The latter.

[X(] Nice!!

err...it would be so wonderful if there were a pre-release of the Manual...(at least a partial pre-release)[8|] 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

- 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.