Global odds calculator?

[gsh34]

Can someone point me in the direction of a good odds calculator for the Europe or Pacific game rule set?

Thanks

[calvinhobbesliker]

http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html
except it doesn’t have 2-hit CVs

[rockrobinoff]

no tac bombers either

[calvinhobbesliker]

@rockrobinoff:

no tac bombers either

It now has those

[carnage4u]

its a shame that calc isnt updated on the droid OS to the newest rules set either.

[TexCapPrezJimmy]

I contacted the guy that makes that and he says he’ll change the Aircraft Carrier to two hits and that he’s updating the iPod/iPhone/Android software soon with the 1940 simulator. Soon, whatever that means.

[gamerman01]

A calculator that only shows chance of victory for each side falls far short of what is needed.

Also, when I put in a tac bomber or a fighter, it gives better odds for the tac bomber.  This should not be the case, because they both attack at 3.

For 1940, I created my own crude “calculator” with Excel, since I’ve never seen a decent calculator for this version yet.

There is definitely a need for some programming nerd to create a good calculator.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@gamerman01:

A calculator that only shows chance of victory for each side falls far short of what is needed.

Also, when I put in a tac bomber or a fighter, it gives better odds for the tac bomber.  This should not be the case, because they both attack at 3.

For 1940, I created my own crude “calculator” with Excel, since I’ve never seen a decent calculator for this version yet.

There is definitely a need for some programming nerd to create a good calculator.

http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html?&rules=4&attTacticalBomber=1&defFighter=1

Looks like tacs attack at 3

[gamerman01]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@gamerman01:

A calculator that only shows chance of victory for each side falls far short of what is needed.

Also, when I put in a tac bomber or a fighter, it gives better odds for the tac bomber.  This should not be the case, because they both attack at 3.

For 1940, I created my own crude “calculator” with Excel, since I’ve never seen a decent calculator for this version yet.

There is definitely a need for some programming nerd to create a good calculator.

http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html?&rules=4&attTacticalBomber=1&defFighter=1

Looks like tacs attack at 3

Change your tac to a fighter and compare your results.  They’re different.  That program is flawed.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@gamerman01:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@gamerman01:

A calculator that only shows chance of victory for each side falls far short of what is needed.

Also, when I put in a tac bomber or a fighter, it gives better odds for the tac bomber.  This should not be the case, because they both attack at 3.

For 1940, I created my own crude “calculator” with Excel, since I’ve never seen a decent calculator for this version yet.

There is definitely a need for some programming nerd to create a good calculator.

http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html?&rules=4&attTacticalBomber=1&defFighter=1

Looks like tacs attack at 3

Change your tac to a fighter and compare your results.  They’re different.  That program is flawed.

Nope, it went from 19.6% to 19.0%

[gamerman01]

Calvin, I don’t know about you….

If you just hit “run sim” with exactly what you yourself put in there, you do not get 19.6%.  It says 20.9%.

Change it to a fighter, it drops to 18.0%.  It should be EXACTLY the same.  It’s flawed.  That’s all.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@gamerman01:

Calvin, I don’t know about you….

If you just hit “run sim” with exactly what you yourself put in there, you do not get 19.6%.  It says 20.9%.

Change it to a fighter, it drops to 18.0%.  It should be EXACTLY the same.  It’s flawed.  That’s all.

There is a slight shift in percentages because it calculates by running 1000 battles. It’s withing the range of error

[gamerman01]

Good point, but that just supports another reason I don’t like this calculator.  It gives you results varying by up to 5%.  I like a calc that tells you what the averages are, period.  Like, infinite runs.

Like if you have a battleship on battleship, you have exactly a 50% chance of winning.  Not 48-52%.  :roll:

[calvinhobbesliker]

@gamerman01:

Good point, but that just supports another reason I don’t like this calculator.  It gives you results varying by up to 5%.  I like a calc that tells you what the averages are, period.  Like, infinite runs.

Like if you have a battleship on battleship, you have exactly a 50% chance of winning.  Not 48-52%.  :roll:

Well, you can make it do 10,000 runs. If you’re really serious, run it multiple times and take the average percentage. it’s accurate enough for most purposes.

[gamerman01]

See my above points.  I think it sucks if it doesn’t show you the chances of losing nothing, losing 1 infantry, losing 2 infantry, etc etc.  Most times I’m not just interested in taking the territory or wiping him out, I wanna know how much I’ll be left with!  Very important!

[calvinhobbesliker]

@gamerman01:

See my above points.  I think it sucks if it doesn’t show you the chances of losing nothing, losing 1 infantry, losing 2 infantry, etc etc.  Most times I’m not just interested in taking the territory or wiping him out, I wanna know how much I’ll be left with!  Very important!

Well, it tells on average how many ipcs of units you’ll lose, so you can guess the units left over

[gamerman01]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@gamerman01:

See my above points.  I think it sucks if it doesn’t show you the chances of losing nothing, losing 1 infantry, losing 2 infantry, etc etc.  Most times I’m not just interested in taking the territory or wiping him out, I wanna know how much I’ll be left with!  Very important!

Well, it tells on average how many ipcs of units you’ll lose, so you can guess the units left over

On average.  I don’t want on average.  I want to see the results between the 5th and 95th percentile, or between the 40th and 60th percentile, etc.  I would never ever use a calculator like this (I think the one on frood is similar).

[allweneedislove]

@gamerman01:

See my above points.  I think it sucks if it doesn’t show you the chances of losing nothing, losing 1 infantry, losing 2 infantry, etc etc.  Most times I’m not just interested in taking the territory or wiping him out, I wanna know how much I’ll be left with!  Very important!

you wont know how many units you are left with if you are not playing lowluck. you are only going to get averages so the calculator with some math skills and intuition should be enough.

i use triplea’s built in battle calculator. i find it very helpful. you input the number of times it simulates the battle and gives the attackers win %, draw %, defender win % average units left for attacker and average units left for defender.

[TexCapPrezJimmy]

Fine, then don’t use it. It’s running a Monte Carlo simulation, which is the only reasonable way of doing it.

From the repository for all human knowledge:

Monte Carlo methods (or Monte Carlo experiments) are a class of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to compute their results. Monte Carlo methods are often used in simulating physical and mathematical systems. Because of their reliance on repeated computation of random or pseudo-random numbers, these methods are most suited to calculation by a computer and tend to be used when it is unfeasible or impossible to compute an exact result with a deterministic algorithm.

If a 5% uncertainty is not good enough for you then just run more iterations as Calvin said, or, get crackin’ on that super computer.

A percentage chance of winning/losing/drawing, coupled with the average IPC loss, should be sufficient information for any reasonable player to make a decision. It’s certainly better than no statistical information at all and I don’t want to play with anybody that needs more information.

[gamerman01]

Whatever.  You guys obviously don’t understand what I’m trying to tell you, and I have no reason to try explaining it to you.  I’ll just profit from my vastly superior calculator.  :-D

Average IPC loss and chance of winning or losing is not NEARLY enough information for me, no.