Matrix Games Forums

1 - Iraq) 2 Allied units (8 str Indian corp/ 5 str Transjordan gar) next (yes next to) to Baghdad (Axis) for almost 2 years with no surrender (now Aug '42). There is a glitch somewhere or a change I am unaware of.

2 - Vichy) Allies captures Vichy from Axis then buy Vichy unit, then Vichy joins France (no more Vichy). Game still wants to place Vichy unit but says no where to place it.

ty

Hi

1) I've checked the scripts and there is either a 25 or 75% chance per turn of Iraq surrendering per turn, depending on whether Germany has sent a mission to support the Iraqis.

This would suggest that they have sent a mission, as the only other condition I can see are that the UK must not have surrendered... unless the Allies declared war on Iraq rather than wait for Iraq to join the Axis? In which case the country will need to be conquered in the normal way.

2) Unfortunately we don't have a solution to this at the moment. If any units are in the field/production then it might be best not to say yes to having Vichy rejoin France, depending on the overall situation.

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Hi

1) I've checked the scripts and there is either a 25 or 75% chance per turn of Iraq surrendering per turn, depending on whether Germany has sent a mission to support the Iraqis.

This would suggest that they have sent a mission, as the only other condition I can see are that the UK must not have surrendered... unless the Allies declared war on Iraq rather than wait for Iraq to join the Axis? In which case the country will need to be conquered in the normal way.

2) Unfortunately we don't have a solution to this at the moment. If any units are in the field/production then it might be best not to say yes to having Vichy rejoin France, depending on the overall situation.

Thank you Bill, your quick response and interest is as always greatly appreciated.

The Iraq situation is the basic Iraq sanctions then revolt then Brit Indian troops appears by Iraq (the one with the picture of Indian troops). I'm guessing my opponent said yes to DE 624 and the odds are 25% for Iraq surrender with two units by Baghdad. The problem is I've had two units by Baghdad for almost 2 years with a 25% chance of surrender and there has been no surrender.

Generally when I report something like this it corrects the next turn. [:D]


The Vichy situation isn't that big of a deal I'd venture that most Allied players that this happens to has the game in hand. I just thought I'd let you know.



Looking forward to the 0 supply improvements.

Iraq finally surrendered January 1943 after I put the Brit recon with Indian corp next to Baghdad (had Indian corp & Transjordan garrison next to Baghdad for 2+ years). The only thing I can think of is it didn't recognize the transjordan garrison.

There hasn't been a change that the transjordan units +/or garrisons dont count in the Iraq decision correct?

My recollection is its any two units of any strength.

Not getting a 25% hit for 2 + years is obviously near a mathematical impossibility so there must be another reason.

Hi

I've just re-checked the scripts and they are set to check for any Allied units, rather than checking for any specific nationality.

I'm glad to hear it did finally surrender, and can only think that the maths has been unkind to you.

Thanks Bill.

The chance that my opponent would hit 75% 45 times in a row is .0000024

So I think there might be another issue. I had to reinforce the garrison a time or two. It almost seems that for some reason it did't recognize the Transjordan garrison.

I have used the Indian corp & the Transjordan garrison to successfully get Iraq to surrender in many other games.

There have have been quite a few posts by other players on a similar issue of Iraq not surrendering after multiple turns.

Hi PvtBenjamin,

There could indeed be an issue, but at the same time while not getting a 25% hit for many turns is of low probability, it is certainly possible as there is an independence of events each time the calculation is run.

It is like flipping a coin, where let's say flipping a coin and getting 'heads' 5 times in a row would be rare, the next time I flip a coin, the previous flips have no bearing on the outcome on the next flip, so no matter what the previous results were, I'm looking at a 50/50 chance of getting heads once again for my 6th flip. This repeats for each subsequent flip as well.

Since each flip of a coin is independent, it is possible to flip 'heads' 1 million times in a row, even if unlikely. This is the same when it comes to the % chances of things happening in game as well as each % calculation is completely independent of the previous calculation etc.

Hubert

I used this source as a reference to what I posted above:

https://learn.problemgambling.ca/probab ... dom-chance

Independence of Events

A basic assumption in probability theory is that each event is independent of all other events. That is, previous draws have no influence on the next draw. A popular catch phrase is “the dice have no memory.” A die or roulette ball cannot look back and determine that it is due for a 6 or some other number. How could a coin decide to turn up a head after 20 tails? Each event is independent and therefore the player can never predict what will come up next. If a fair coin was flipped 5 times and came up heads 5 times in a row, the next flip could be either heads or tails. The fact that heads have come up 5 times in a row has no influence on the next flip. It is wise not to treat something that is very very unlikely as if it were impossible (see Turner, 1998). In fact, if a coin is truly random, it must be possible for heads to come up 1 million times in a row. Such an event is extraordinarily unlikely, p = 1/21,000,000, but possible. Even then, the next flip is just as likely to be heads as it is tails. Nonetheless, many people believe that a coin corrects itself; if heads comes up too often, they think tails is due.

Thanks Hubert

Actually I was Statistics major although it may be so long ago it doesn't count

You are correct on each turn the probability is 75% but the probability hitting 75% 45 times in a row is .0000024. It is after all 45 times in a row. Many successful gamblers believe that these things go in streaks which I believe has some merit but 45 times is over the top.

Not really that important but there may be an issue beyond poor luck in my Iraq case.

Interesting on your background and as mentioned, there could be, and I carry on here as the whole probability of it all does fascinate me.

For some background, the game also uses the same random number generator for everything, so it will fire other random numbers in between the specific roll for Iraq surrendering, and the seed for the random number generator is reset between games as well, which could factor in here.

That being said, I've run a number of tests on it over the years, as questions like this do arise, and if I run it through a 10,000 iteration loop, on average each number from 1 to 100 will have been generated to appear about 100 times (give or take).... so it does seem consistent at least over time with large sample runs of random numbers.

Out of curiosity, within that loop I counted the longest stretch of consecutive numbers generated that were greater than 25 (from 1 to 100) and after a few test runs the longest stretch was 27 times in a row, or .000042. Other test runs generated longest stretches of 22, or 25 etc.

Interesting back and forth about the science behind the game.

It seems to me that if the Transjordan Garrison had worked in the past to be one of the two units to cause the surrender but didn't work this time then:
A. Serendipity struck and a very unlikely 45 times in a row occurred.
B. There is a very sporadic bug that will be nearly impossible t trace.

Note I had always used the recon unit thinking that garrison would not work. Good to know.

Early in my career my boss and his friends were big time gamblers and I wrote Lotus 123 [8D] programs for him simulating craps & roulette games and strategies. Their whole strategy was to bet heavily on streaks once a game got "hot". These guys did very well betting on what didn't seem probable (Huberts 27 in a row @ .000042).

Statistics many times provide outcomes that don't seem likely.

The "birthday paradox" for example if you put 30 people in a room there is a 71% probability that 2 people have the game birthday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem



In this Iraq case the only thing I can think of is that my Transjordan garrison twice had to reinforce (first 2-4 turns) away from Baghdad and then again go next to Baghdad and some how the game didn't count it from there on. Maybe its just an amazing statistical anomaly.