There’s a Cossack saying, “Do not salute yourself in victory, or blame your horse in defeat.”
–
My horse’s name is Lucky, and I am not a Cossack.
@ncscswitch:
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management.Â
yep… his brilliant one post insight was not lost on you, for sure…
@ncscswitch:
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management.Â
yep… his brilliant one post insight was not lost on you, for sure…
What is wrong with a theory of risk management???
Posted on: January 26, 2007, 04:58:02 PMPosted by: ncscswitch
And Darth used a great anaology with the “know when to fold”
Posted on: January 26, 2007, 08:10:58 AMPosted by: critmonster
that’s where skill comes in, like the poker analogy (and the song says)
you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
my names not darth :wink:
@ncscswitch:
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management.Â
yep… his brilliant one post insight was not lost on you, for sure…
What is wrong with a theory of risk management???
Nothing, not a damn thing.
I had said the same thing several posts before Crazy Straw….
except i said I manage my risks…
I use a much clearer font.
@CrazyStraw:
I use a much clearer font.
Thanks for the chuckle
I think new players tend to make risky attacks too often, and then blame failure on bad luck.
Personally, a long time ago I used to attack fig + 2inf vs 2 inf, which is a terrible idea. I generally try to attack with a win percent of around 85% for small battles, and 95% or more for large battles. New players will attack with a 60% chance of winning, which is going to lead to not just losing, but losing by a lot.
If a new player ends up regularly losing by a lot because they are attacking at 60% (eg 1 in 10 times it will go very badly for them), whereas the experienced player tend to win by a lot because they are attacking with 90% win ratio, then the new player will interpret this as evidence of luck. Psychology is an interesting element here.
As a sidenote, I was in the tournament game where my opponent missed 29 infantry shots in a row. 1 in 120,000. Though I was solidly winning before that happenned (and probably had a 97% chance of winning the battle).
Played a game where as Germany I happened to have a rogue TRANny and 1 INF within range of Eastern US. The US player mounted a huge invasion force into Europe. His build was all Navy and ground units on the West Coast in preperation for Japan. Left one INF defending EUS.
Was it luck when my INF rolled a “1” and his rolled a “3”?
Or skill that had that rogue TRANny and 1 INF placed to take such a gamble?
I was ready for the TRANny and INF to die for “nothing”. My opponent was not ready for EUS to fall.
The fact that the dice are random is known to all the players. A good player builds strategies and tactics that can handle the bad luck and exploit the good luck. A bad player fails at this and blames the dice.
So it is not really skill that you won, you gambled big time and it payed of.
1 INF on 1 INF for a CAPITAL is an attempt I’ll take every time it is offered. If you win, you win HUGE. If you lose… so what? It was only 1 INF…
So while actually taking the capital in such a situation requires a bit of luck (1 in 3 ish). Leaving the capital open to such an ATTEMPT is puely bad strategy/tactics.
It was stupid that he left only 1 inf to defend but on the other hand you had about a 30% or even less chance to win.
1 inf vs 1 inf is not a good chance.So it is not really skill that you won, you gambled big time and it payed of.
I would hardly say that risking 1 INF (and maybe a TRN) for the chance of taking EUS (robbing the US player of probably 40IPCs of cash and stalling them from purchasing for two rounds even if the territory is retaken immediately) is “gambling big time”.
~Josh
well, when your bomber squadrons are destroyed by a fat merchant marine with a .45 that is not a lack of skill. a lone transport is just what a bomber is looking for. but those things happen sometimes :| just be grateful it isn’t real life, set 'em up and try again
Let me drop a bone to you guys… this just happened in a 5-player game I’m playing here on the forums.
It’s US3 and Japan has just dropped off units to w.can leaving 3 trns in sz63. My bomber is stationed in novo and I decide to be a daredevil and give it a go. All 3 trns sunk and bomber lives. Landing on midway with 1 inf for protection. Japan also has 1 trn in sz60 and 2 inf on Japan, no air in range. Now…
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
@Sankt:
Let me drop a bone to you guys… this just happened in a 5-player game I’m playing here on the forums.
It’s US3 and Japan has just dropped off units to w.can leaving 3 trns in sz63. My bomber is stationed in novo and I decide to be a daredevil and give it a go. All 3 trns sunk and bomber lives. Landing on midway with 1 inf for protection. Japan also has 1 trn in sz60 and 2 inf on Japan, no air in range. Now…
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
No, you managed your risks. Perhaps you felt that taking out the transports was:
1). Too big of a reward to NOT take the 22% risk
2). The only way to get back into the game (if you were behind)
3). You probably felt that the bomber would not live so you didn’t worry about defending him in Midway.
22% is a high outcome percentage… you WILL see these results. Now if you posted something like a 2-4% outcome, then I might call that a bit lucky.
I would say your opponent took a calculated risk as well that didn’t pay off for him. If he could afford the transports, then perhaps he was ok with that risk. If losing 3 transports may now cost him the game, then he took a bad gamble (unless he is losing). he then mis-mangaged his risks.
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
No roll of the dice could ever be called “skilled.” Â All dice rolls are lucky or unlucky, accepting the notion that they are truly random.
Your opponent clearly saw your Bomber in Novo, and took the risk of leaving 3 unescorted transports within easy striking distance. Â Probably assumed that you wouldn’t risk the Bomber against 3 1s. Â You were bold and made the attack, with a very low likelihood that your Bomber would survive the combat. Â You were lucky in the results, no question.
The issue of skill comes into play when determining your strategy and tactics accounting for the luck factor built into the game. Â Every player must take risks in individual battles at some point. Â The question is how skillfully you are able to judge when to take those risks and when not to, and whether or not you have developed a backup plan in case your carefully-judged risks should end up on the unlucky side for you.
The US can usually afford to lose the Bomber if it means crippling the Japanese transport system… I wonder if you would have made the same decision to attack if it were a UK Bomber nearby? Â
~Josh
PS - Â And I think your opponent will certainly attack Midway. Â He definitely wants to kill that Bomber now. Â Maybe it wasn’t a good idea to leave it in reach of anything.
PS - Â And I think your opponent will certainly attack Midway. Â He definitely wants to kill that Bomber now. Â Maybe it wasn’t a good idea to leave it in reach of anything.
I could just as easily have landed it in safety in w.us but decided to push my luck by using midway. sz60 is no longer safe for his trn(he has only 2 left now, the other with the fleet in sz37). He will either have to attack me at midway or move out of reach of my bomber. If he attacks I still have a 60% chance to survive with the bomber. Certainly worth the gamble for him by throwing 2 inf at me, but if he fails it will also result in him losing another trn.
I feel that taking out 3 Jap trns in round 3 is a game-breaker. It is a huge setback for the axis, it will take a lot of smart moves and some help from the dice to get back into the action. This was caused by me being “lucky” in the sense that 3 trns should more often than not come out victorious from such a battle. Personally I wouldn’t trust 3 trns to do the job so it could be argued(IMO) that my opponent made a misjudgement.
But the second part of my operation is just as risky. Risking a 15 ipc unit(which I probably will replace at one point or another if lost) to get a unit worth 8. Here my reasoning is that by sending that trn in(at 40% success) he is risking his trn and it is NOT sending units towards russia. A failure also means he will not be able to evacuate his canadian landing party. His purchase must also take into account that my bomber can survive so buying 3 new trns without protection may prove costly if I can repeat my dice rolls. Actually I think he is more of a daredevil than me if he does not buy a capital ship with the new trns. (Unless he skips trns altogether for one round)
These examples to show just how intricate some decisions can be and what great part the dice can play in smaller but crucial battles, especially early round sea battles.
sure sounds allot like risk management to me more than LUCK… IMHO.
Frankly, for me, I find it is better to manage my risks.
No, you managed your risks.Â
…
I would say your opponent took a calculated risk as well that didn’t pay off for him. If he could afford the transports, then perhaps he was ok with that risk. If losing 3 transports may now cost him the game, then he took a bad gamble (unless he is losing). he then mis-mangaged his risks.
Gotta agree. It was the decision to leave them potentially vulnerable that was the cause, not luck.
Lets also be clear on something… He had 3 1’s to shoot your bomber R1. They obviously missed. You hit.
R2 he has 2 1’s. “Low luck”/odds/avg counters might say well you “should” get a hit here, since you will have had 5 shots at it. But the dice “dont care” that they missed R1. They dont keep track. For them, its the same 1/6 chance it always was.
Sometimes folks forget that in counting “avg” hits…
Squirecam
CS has it down…
Risk management will win over bad dice almost every time
