No Sign-Up Required!
Play Now!
STATS RAGE
I have now had three OFFENSES to the world of statistics!
After five years of battling a lone jap attacking infantry takes over the western united states in axis and allies; in the process taking out 3I and 1AA!!!
WTH?!?!?!?
In a different game of A+A, after four years of battling a jap transport kills two US Destroyers....
WTH?!?!?!
In yet another game, 10T I am attacking with kill 2I and the 6I 1F that are there kill 5 of them...
WTH?!?!?!
GAH WHAT IS WITH THIS PICTURE?!?!
RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sucks to be your US :) .
no kidding! lol, I seem to attract statistic anomalies...remember a while ago when I was new and on A+A I was randomly assigned japan 15/17 games or something like that? lol. (that is of course assuming these are really anomolies and not some offset because of my user id that will affect the rest of my games...)
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
You should probably team up with Japanguy1 for double the laughs.
assimilator I was in that game where the lone jap infantry went beserk in the US. Was a legendary run and should be remembered for the fighting spirit of the little guy knowing his beloved homeland was being overrun from every direction. a statisitical anomoly it may be, but it was legend.. wait for it... ary.
i don't know, I kind of would like to be on the receiving end of these statistical anamolies....just to shake things up...i'm sick of epicly hurting me, lol
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
In a game I'm in just witnessed Hammer76 defending Central Crag Island with 3 Inf, 1 Tank & 1 Fighter vs 4 tanks & 2 Inf and he lost them all. The invaders suffered NO CASUALTIES.
A little more salt in his wounds... he also sent a Bomber to attack East Crag Island --which he'd lost the previous year-- and 2 Inf shot it down.
I'm thinking Crowninshield's forces should be tested for steroids.
I'm in a ten human epic, and just set up the following battles:
My 1S 3F 1B vs 1S 2F
Results: I lost 1S 1F, he lost only his sub
My 7T 3I attacking vs 3T 1I
Results: We each lost 1I
Sometimes you get hosed by the dice. It happens. :)
looking at your examples though, 1S 2F should expect to kill two units...you losing 1I in the other example isn't far from expected...ek (expected kills) for 3T 1I attacking is 1.65, granted your ek was 3, but also we're talking one round....
look at the first two of my examples...they are sustained battles...
3I 1AA should expect to kill 1 unit per turn, but they failed to do so for four turns in a row, then that 1I which has an ek of .15 (way less than a unit!) manages to kill off all 4 units over a few years....
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
Assimilator - Not sure why you have to give my Japan Infantry such a hard time? That was my guy and my game you are talking about. Lets set things right. It was two Infantry that landed guys not one. this first killed on round one, and I warned you assimilator that the second was "genetically enhanced". :)Drex is right.....It was a lengendary battle with a kamakazi effort knwoing that his home was no more. Good game that ended in Assimilators favor. until next time.
looking at your examples though, 1S 2F should expect to kill two units...you losing 1I in the other example isn't far from expected...ek (expected kills) for 3T 1I attacking is 1.65, granted your ek was 3, but also we're talking one round....
The unexpected parts were in the first battle, me having 1F and 1B additional to both of us having 1S 2F, and killing only 1 unit to his 2 kills. And in the 2nd battle, his 3T 1I is defending, my 7T 3I is attacking. His defense of 1 kill is normal, but my attack killing 1 is a tad sub optimal. lol
@ oVo: Those attacking divisions were all trained under the harshest conditions imaginable. The infantry were all special forces, cold, ruthless killers and the armor units all had to spend 6 months commuting in Boston rushhour traffic to enhance their offensive driving abilities. I'm telling you, the defenders didn't stand a chance ;)
Ingeneral: again one round and one unit difference as opposed to many years and a 4 unit difference...
porter, yes two infantry landed, and I expected to kill one with my 3I and AA, the fact that the other one survived for five consecutive turns? We're not talking a one-time freak incident this is a one-game freak phenomena (and yes I did still win, but it was pretty annoying having to build tanks on my homeland again after building an additional infantry every now and then to account for the loss of his infantry killing my own).
The fact that these kind of statistics are consistent with me is what I find disturbing. For now I'm willing to believe I've just played enough games I should expect to see it...but they really can be weird....
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
I didn't realize I was comparing my battle to anyone elses situation, I thought I was just sharing an anomalous battle. You win, yours is worse. GL to you.
Here's a good one that happened recently: My 4I and 4F vs 3I and 2SAM vs 4I (three way battle). Guess which units I lose? 4F...talk about some accurate SAMs.
it would be interesting to see the percentage of folks, that feel like they have gotten , shanked, by the dice. I know I usually remember the bad luck, & assume I deserved the good luck.
The good luck rarely stands out like the bad luck does.
I was nearly eliminated in a recent game where 5 Tanks, 2 Infantry & a SAM assaulted 5 Inf, 2 Tanks, 3 Fighters & a SAM with devastating results and no casualties. Eventually it became obvious that these attackers were indestructable and only the winning conditions achieved by another player spared me from elimination.
I've noticed one time in an AA game where germany got shanked by UK units, I was US; honestly I am milking it a little bit at this point, I originally posted this to vent hehe
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
"germany got shanked by UK units"
- was it the damn luftwafe not scoring any hits?
it was dr. killitz: he was too rutheless a tyrant and his men decided not to fight ;)
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
6 tanks and three infantry score 5 hits--cost me 225 points against a new player.
just had one in IO--4 inf on def. no hits in 1 battle, 2 transports, 2 ACC, & 4 fighters & no hits in another battle. didn't get a single hit, in my whole turn, & I started in a bad spot. may not be long for that game.
4 inf on defense there is a 24% chance you'll get no hits.
The other battle is pretty unlikely, only a 2% chance of no hits by 2Tr 2C 4F.
I remember a battle in a two team hex map where 10T5F could never get asingle hit on the two defenders. The attacker raged at the injustice of the odds as the battle went on and on and he piled up more units while the other team (burg, clem and I or was it burg, punjab and I?) just giggled in our private messages. The attacker was attacking one of his own team members....
I won't out the poor attacker but it was the funniest thing I've ever seen in BF - especially as our team honestly chatted back to him how it was quite amazing and the most improbable battle we'd ever witnessed.
ROFLMAO great stuff Barka. :D
wow barka, OMG LOL
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
Heh. I remember the game of which Barka speaks, and I confess to having been a member of the team that... shall we say ... had such a strange statistical outcome. In our defense though, it was a 3v3 game, and I believe the 3rd member of our team had deadbeated or something, so it was just two of us left (off the top of my head, I don't remember who the other members of my team were). I wasn't paying too much attention to where my teammate was moving, though I saw him attacking a territory not belonging to either him or me, and I just assumed it was an enemy territory. I do recall ranting in game chat at the injustice of the dice to not let my teammate win the battle there after multiple rounds, and I ended up really confused when he all of a sudden moved his troops from that island onto transports. That game was pretty embarassing! :)
That game was hilarious and strange...
It was me, Barka, and I think AlexanderKGB vs. Doc, NameRedactedtoProtectHim, and someone I can't remember. on the Armada map. Doc is right that Redacted was "attacking" the 3rd member of their team... I think that member had been defeated already and was left with one island with one inf on it, hence couldn't do anything at all any more anyway. Rules quirk that our team could take that island for the income but Doc/Redacted could not.
I recall telling Barka in team e-mail that our good fortune over this "attack" continuing would not last long, as Doc would surely set Redacted right after Redacted's first public complaint. Lo and behold the next turn Doc also starts complaining about the result, and Barka and I just about fell over laughing. :-)
Keep in mind that up until this point the game had already been one of the top 2 weirdest statistical games I've ever played in. Our team's strategy revolved 100% around taking out that 3rd member of Doc's team fast, and over the course of 5-10 turns in a massive battle we ended up something like 15 kills below average and inexplicably could not kill him. At that point Doc was poised to swoop in and devastate us. I believed our only hope at saving our position was to let Doc attack my capital and to attack a 20-income island w/ 1 tank vs. 1 inf and just hope for the best. Doc's attack on my cap had a ~70% chance to succeed but failed (and it was amphibious w/ no immediate reinforcements, hence doomed after that one round), and my tank had only 35% to take that 20-income island that turn but managed to do so. Boom! Game turned around in our favor in a flash. Then a few turns later I caught two of Doc's transports with my subs: my sub vs. Doc trans in 2 different sea zones. Result? 2 sunk subs and 2 happy tranpsorts! Crazy, crazy. A few more weird things like that happened, then the infamous self-attack made everything else up until that point look normal... Needless to say, that game was an instant classic and totally unforgettable.
Certainly I salute your good humor over the game, Doc! Fun all around. :-)
lol, another stats rage, was in a game as UK where 2 nazi tanks killed 2 UK tanks in egypt: UK occupied territory.... :S
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
Blah blah blah!!!
A single fighter enters a sea zone with 2 Destroyers, 2 Transports, a Bomber, a Carrier and a Sub...
sinks a transport and flies away.
wow...that's impressive...this game must be rigged...lol
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
I had one of those "Damned Infantry" games... 3 player teams and my Cap is Egypt with my teamates based in Asia. An enemy Inf & SAM defend the adjacent African territory and three years pass before I could get a hit... and many more before it finally fell. That situation was a big factor in getting stomped in that game.
Since no one has been whining lately, here's one: The Gladiator and I playing heads up Africa. I'm attacking his capital with infantry every turn to keep him pinned down until suddenly he kills ALL SEVEN of my units with 8 men and a tank. I make that as hitting 3 on average, yes?
wow...that's some crazy crap!
Life's greatest problems are often solved by small means.
When in doubt, follow the most efficient pattern: the pattern nature created.
How is this possible?: Defender holding territory with 1 SAM is attacked by attacker A with 4 tanks 4 infantry 1 SAM 3 fighters and 2 bombers, and attacker B with 2 infantry 2 tanks and 4 fighters. Casualties are as follows: Attacker A loses 4 infantry 2 tanks 1 fighter and 1 bomber; attacker B loses 2 infantry 2 tanks and 2 fighters; defender maintains control of the territory with 1 SAM...
So killitz and I are truced against dogboy in the indian ocean, and dogboy has 20 tanks and a couple infantry in Iraq (owned by killitz) And I have about a dozen ground units in arabia. we have dogboys retreat cut off so his units are stuck, and dogboy only has planes left on the territory.
I have dogboy remove his planes and attack iraq. Supposedly (and past experimentation has supported this) when there is no defender, the attacking force with the most units is nominated the new defender and attack stats are changed accordingly. Instead of that actually happening, dogboys tanks scored more hits than likelyn attacking force, and eliminated all the ground units I sent in, thus capturing the territory and un-pinning his tanks.
That stats fluke very nearly cost us the game, the only reason we're still in it now is because dogboys intial attack on Arabia failed (barely) and now we've built up enough troops to start pushing him back.
btw, Dogboy's been putting up an amazing fight, we intially had a combined income advantage of about %30 on him, and my massive navy versus his numerous ground forces (indian Ocean). Now his income nearly matches ours, and while we've started to gain the upper hand on the ground, his newly built navy has me on defense. (and don't forget this is against me, who I have a very high opinon of lol)
addo is in fossor , Ego mos iuguolo vos
>How is this possible?
I always forget exactly how the hits are allocated, but I think the hits are calculated and then each hit has a chance of being allocated to one of the other teams based on their ratio of units present.
As the defender only had 1 unit and the attackers have 14 & 8, it's not surprising that all the hits are allocated to the attackers. There's also the 20% AA effect.
Attacker A should hit 5.4 (B lost 6, including a possible 2 to AA), attacker B 3.3 ( A lost 6 & 2 to AA). So it looks like attacker B had some good rolls, but not massively so
Bromley is right. When we ran the test games a while back, the concept of "defender" in a ground battle is only used to determine whether or not units hit (e.g. whether a tank has a 50% or a 30% chance of hitting) rather than who the attacks are directed at.
So, in Crowinshield's example, Attacker A saw 9 enemy units in the territory, only 1 of which was the defending AA gun, so 89% of his hits would be expected to hit attacker B rather than the defender. Likewise, Attacker B saw 15 enemy units in the territory, only one of which was the defending AA gun, so 93% of his hits would be expected to hit attacker A instead of the defender.
This is why you should never send fighters into an allied territory to help defend it unless you have ground units with it. The attacker's hits will be randomly assigned to one of the two (or more) defenders based on the relative sizes of the defending forces. So, suppose an attacker scores a single hit against a territory your ally owns. Now suppose your ally has 1inf there, and you have 1ftr. There is actually a 50% chance your ftr will die and the infantry survives. If your ally had 3inf instead, your ftr would only die 25% of the time (assuming 1 hit from the attacker).
Amphibious assault of 3T, 3I, 4F, and 1B...1 hit. What should have been an overwelming victory (only 2I defenders) is now going to turn into an unretreatable protracted battle with defending infantry pooring in from all directions. YAY!
oh i remember that one peavy..i was gonna mention that.
..in a game vs bromley and matz recently i lost about 15 pathetic lil russian girls in one round and hit once!there is always something unexpected in war so this just mimics that,right?
I'm getting thumped badly by outnumbered wusses lately.
You killed Kenny. YOU BASTARDS!
Lesson is: multiple attackers/defenders in a single territory is risky business, unless you are "Doc 'Run-a-test' Brown", or " 'Where's my calculator' Bromley" ;)
Or " 'Kill them all and let God sort them out' Peavybob" (Sorry couldn't resist)
OK, I forgot about "Peavy 'Humble' bob"...
I'll remember that next time I'm "sorting them out" ;) :)
First Year of a game, Egypt with a factory has 4 Infantry and a SAM . . . is invaded by 3 Fighters, 1 Tank, 1 Infantry and a SAM.
What sort of results might one expect?
Oh dear, I take it not 2 each?
Oh the horror my brothers... THE HORROR! Egypt fell to the invading barbarians who only lost the inf & SAM and I am still in shock.
the stats machine hates communism. end rant.
I'm a reasonable guy. I don't expect much, but that doesn't mean I don't expect anything. I invaded the island of Hokkaido with 3 infantry and a bomber. The island has 1 lone defending infantry unit which I in no way expected to take out the first round of attack. I planned on it taking 2-3 turns (I flew the bomber in each turn) and knew that with just 3 infantry for land forces a hit would not be guaranteed. However, after 4 turns of scoring no hits the bomber was needed elsewhere so a fighter was given the job of flying in and giving air support. Now after 6 turn (loosing 2 infantry so far) I've calculated it as follows: This is the equivalent of 4 bombers, 2 fighters, and 15 infantry (1 killed during the 3rd round of combat, 1 killed ON the 6th turn so it fought in all 6 rounds) scoring 0 hits in 1 round of combat. At this point it has caused serious damage to my game due to my fleet being stuck in place waiting for the battle to end. If I was in a high income position this wouldn't even be a blip on the radar, I'd just ferry over some tanks, but I'm pulling in less than $50 a turn and all available units are needed for the defense of a western front. I may very well loose this game because of this unfortunate statistical anomaly...
P.S. Notice how the defending infantry unit has performed almost exactly how his statistical defensive rating would predict: 2 hits over 6 turns.
Before:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/celebesbefore.gif/
After:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/59/celebesafter.gif/