Screen shots of combat?

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

It wasn't clear to me to was the primary (or sole?) author.

Vince provided the Means and STDs. I calculated the odds for each possible result for each of the roll combinations.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

It wasn't clear to me to was the primary (or sole?) author.

Vince provided the Means and STDs. I calculated the odds for each possible result for each of the roll combinations.

I used your probabilities for each outcome to determine the modes.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

It wasn't clear to me to was the primary (or sole?) author.

Vince provided the Means and STDs. I calculated the odds for each possible result for each of the roll combinations.

I used your probabilities for each outcome to determine the modes.

Then it would be good IMO to write below the table that all calculations are courtesy of Vince Velten and Paul Derynck. Maybe even ask Vince for permission
(I had noted vince at veltens dot com as his email address).

[lomyrin]

Here is a table showing the percentage chances for any particular result in combat using the 2D10 table.

t means other than clear terrain
w means other than fine weather
The final + modifier to the die roll is the row to use.

Lars

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



Vince provided the Means and STDs. I calculated the odds for each possible result for each of the roll combinations.

I used your probabilities for each outcome to determine the modes.

Then it would be good IMO to write below the table that all calculations are courtesy of Vince Velten and Paul Derynck. Maybe even ask Vince for permission
(I had noted vince at veltens dot com as his email address).

For me this is unnecessary. Anyone with the time and math knowledge could do it.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



I used your probabilities for each outcome to determine the modes.

Then it would be good IMO to write below the table that all calculations are courtesy of Vince Velten and Paul Derynck. Maybe even ask Vince for permission
(I had noted vince at veltens dot com as his email address).

For me this is unnecessary. Anyone with the time and math knowledge could do it.

Yes. This is something I did a long time ago.
What? You mean someone else also did this? [:D]

The chart above is beautiful.
Some minor issues with the AA probability distribution though:
The rows with -2/4 and 1/2 should change places. (1/2 should be first)
The rows with -2/3 and 1/5 should change places. (1/5 should be first)

Because that's the way the results come in the Anti-Aircraft Combat results table.
(But I am really wondering why wasn't the results in AA Combat Results Table ordered by increasing mean? But that's just me not understanding the logic.)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp



Then it would be good IMO to write below the table that all calculations are courtesy of Vince Velten and Paul Derynck. Maybe even ask Vince for permission
(I had noted vince at veltens dot com as his email address).

For me this is unnecessary. Anyone with the time and math knowledge could do it.

Yes. This is something I did a long time ago.
What? You mean someone else also did this? [:D]

The chart above is beautiful.
Some minor issues with the AA probability distribution though:
The rows with -2/4 and 1/2 should change places. (1/2 should be first)
The rows with -2/3 and 1/5 should change places. (1/5 should be first)

Because that's the way the results come in the Anti-Aircraft Combat results table.
(But I am really wondering why wasn't the results in AA Combat Results Table ordered by increasing mean? But that's just me not understanding the logic.)

I am going to leave it sorted by mean.

In designing the table ADG might have given more importance to the mode than the mean in some situations.

[paulderynck]

Personally I think the Mode can be misleading. In some cases it is decided by a few tenths of a percent versus the next number higher or lower. The Mean is far more important, even though you must of course roll a whole number.

What might be interesting is a table showing the odds of achieving at least a result of 'x'. For example rolling the lowest one of two, you have a 25% chance to roll at least a 6 and a 64% chance to roll at least a 3.

Anyway it often happens that for the defender a roll of 4 is better than a 5 and a 9 is better than a 10. The table and the odds are subject to so many variables due to surprise and which planes clear through in the preceding air-to-air combat, that it is only an interesting sidelight to view the AA distributions. Players make decisions about the amount of AA they will have based on the columns in the Naval Combat Chart that they can achieve with the forces they wish to assemble.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally I think the Mode can be misleading. In some cases it is decided by a few tenths of a percent versus the next number higher or lower. The Mean is far more important, even though you must of course roll a whole number.

What might be interesting is a table showing the odds of achieving at least a result of 'x'. For example rolling the lowest one of two, you have a 25% chance to roll at least a 6 and a 64% chance to roll at least a 3.

Anyway it often happens that for the defender a roll of 4 is better than a 5 and a 9 is better than a 10. The table and the odds are subject to so many variables due to surprise and which planes clear through in the preceding air-to-air combat, that it is only an interesting sidelight to view the AA distributions. Players make decisions about the amount of AA they will have based on the columns in the Naval Combat Chart that they can achieve with the forces they wish to assemble.

This table only appears in MWIF when deciding about the use of divisional AA units. By then the air-to-air combat has already occurred. Since most of the time the divisional AA is used for defending against attacks where there is no ship AA, the player can control the result directly. He knows the # of enemy bombers and is just deciding which ones to shoot at (if any).

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally I think the Mode can be misleading. In some cases it is decided by a few tenths of a percent versus the next number higher or lower. The Mean is far more important, even though you must of course roll a whole number.

What might be interesting is a table showing the odds of achieving at least a result of 'x'. For example rolling the lowest one of two, you have a 25% chance to roll at least a 6 and a 64% chance to roll at least a 3.

Anyway it often happens that for the defender a roll of 4 is better than a 5 and a 9 is better than a 10. The table and the odds are subject to so many variables due to surprise and which planes clear through in the preceding air-to-air combat, that it is only an interesting sidelight to view the AA distributions. Players make decisions about the amount of AA they will have based on the columns in the Naval Combat Chart that they can achieve with the forces they wish to assemble.

This table only appears in MWIF when deciding about the use of divisional AA units. By then the air-to-air combat has already occurred. Since most of the time the divisional AA is used for defending against attacks where there is no ship AA, the player can control the result directly. He knows the # of enemy bombers and is just deciding which ones to shoot at (if any).

Good point ! [;)]

[Caquineur]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a new form for displaying the AA Fire information. I think it will be a big help to new players in understanding how this mini-combat system works. Thanks to Paul for sending me the spreadsheet of probabilities.[&o]

Hello,

Just for fun, I tried to calculate all the possible outcomes and the mean with Excel, and I agree with the results above except for "-1/5" where the result should be, if I'm not mistaken, 2.21 and not 2.22

Here are the not-rounded data :

-1/6 1.978405
-1/5 2.208250
-1/4 2.533300
-1/3 3.025000
-1/2 3.850000
1/1 5.500000
-2/5 6.041750
-2/4 7.033400
1/2 7.150000
1/3 7.975000
1/4 8.466700
-2/3 8.525000
1/5 8.791750
2/2 11.000000
-3/5 11.541750
2/3 13.475000
-3/4 13.533300
2/4 14.966600
2/5 15.958250
3/3 16.500000
-4/5 18.708250
3/4 19.466700
3/5 21.458250
4/4 22.000000
4/5 25.291750
5/5 27.500000

Steve and/or Paul, if you want to check your calculations (or mine [:D]), I can send you the file by mail (or to anyone interested, for that matter - I don't think there are any copyright issues here ?)

Alain

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a new form for displaying the AA Fire information. I think it will be a big help to new players in understanding how this mini-combat system works. Thanks to Paul for sending me the spreadsheet of probabilities.[&o]

Hello,

Just for fun, I tried to calculate all the possible outcomes and the mean with Excel, and I agree with the results above except for "-1/5" where the result should be, if I'm not mistaken, 2.21 and not 2.22

Here are the not-rounded data :

-1/6 1.978405
-1/5 2.208250
-1/4 2.533300
-1/3 3.025000
-1/2 3.850000
1/1 5.500000
-2/5 6.041750
-2/4 7.033400
1/2 7.150000
1/3 7.975000
1/4 8.466700
-2/3 8.525000
1/5 8.791750
2/2 11.000000
-3/5 11.541750
2/3 13.475000
-3/4 13.533300
2/4 14.966600
2/5 15.958250
3/3 16.500000
-4/5 18.708250
3/4 19.466700
3/5 21.458250
4/4 22.000000
4/5 25.291750
5/5 27.500000

Steve and/or Paul, if you want to check your calculations (or mine [:D]), I can send you the file by mail (or to anyone interested, for that matter - I don't think there are any copyright issues here ?)

Alain

You're right. My mistake in roundnig 2.208 to 2.20 instead of 2.21.

[brian brian]

if using the ASW optional units then you also use this table; and I think I noticed elsewhere that the AA row was removed from the Naval Combat Tables in favor of using this table as a stand-alone. So I was thinking it might be nice to make a copy of this table with the letters 'ASW' on top, and a different text block, that would only appear when using those optional units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

if using the ASW optional units then you also use this table; and I think I noticed elsewhere that the AA row was removed from the Naval Combat Tables in favor of using this table as a stand-alone. So I was thinking it might be nice to make a copy of this table with the letters 'ASW' on top, and a different text block, that would only appear when using those optional units.

Thanks, I missed that.[&o] Silly me, I thought AA fire was just for AA units and factors, not ASW factors too.[8|]
---
I'll just clone the entire form rather than try to insert branching logic to modify it on the fly. Here is a tip for any programmers out there:
Writing very tight code to minimize the number of lines is foolish if the same result can be achieved faster by cloning & editing existing code. Having one routine perform multiple functions makes it very susceptible to errors because the branching logic is difficult to read/understand and modify. Separate routines have a clearly defined purpose and can be freely changed without worrying about inadvertent deleterious effects on other code. Yeah, it takes up more memory, but have you priced the cost of memory recently?

[brian brian]

with the ASW rolls the text in the box will be a bit different as all SUBs are treated the same, unlike carrier / land-based air. ASW pieces are still fairly new and not a popular option in the game.

[Caquineur]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Caquineur
...I agree with the results above except for "-1/5" where the result should be, if I'm not mistaken, 2.21 and not 2.22...

You're right. My mistake in roundnig 2.208 to 2.20 instead of 2.21.

[/quote]
I managed to round 2.20 to 2.22 so I'm even poetic than you [:'(]

On a more serious note, would it be possible to have all results with the same number of digits after the decimal point ?
In order not to have :
3.85
5.5
6.04
but :
3.85
5.50
6.04
(It's easier to read)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Caquineur
...I agree with the results above except for "-1/5" where the result should be, if I'm not mistaken, 2.21 and not 2.22...

You're right. My mistake in roundnig 2.208 to 2.20 instead of 2.21.

I managed to round 2.20 to 2.22 so I'm even poetic than you [:'(]

On a more serious note, would it be possible to have all results with the same number of digits after the decimal point ?
In order not to have :
3.85
5.5
6.04
but :
3.85
5.50
6.04
(It's easier to read)


[/quote]
Not worth the effort.

[morgil]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Yeah, it takes up more memory, but have you priced the cost of memory recently?

I recall a sign a friend of mine made when we were at University, in the early -90s,
"Will work for food or RAM"
Ahh, those were the days.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: morgil

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Yeah, it takes up more memory, but have you priced the cost of memory recently?

I recall a sign a friend of mine made when we were at University, in the early -90s,
"Will work for food or RAM"
Ahh, those were the days.

In 1980 I shopped around for the best price for disk memory for the company I worked for and got a real deal: 80 MB for $80,000.[X(] I kid you not.

[brian brian]

the price of memory is the speed the program loads, ?

which would be determined most by the speed of the bus connecting the CPU to the drive?

and once drives are all memory with no moving parts, this should get really fast?