Posts made by Mazer Rackham

Hey Jen.

I think it is imminently reasonable to assume people can “decode” that a paper on the CSub website with CSub in the filename and CSub in the header is going to use CSub rules.

You are incorrect about the use of LHTR.  LHTR does not even include a bid, and yet most players will play a game that uses a bid.  Ergo, at best they are playing some special variant of LHTR, and no one actually plays with pure LHTR.  Not only that, but TripleA is not pure LHTR, and that is probably the most common rule set in use.

Those who wish to play an enlightened game, however, can play a CSub game with 30 seconds of reading the rules.

If history is anything to go by, this thread is about to become useless and I will bow out.  The floors yours; do the dance you have to do!

:mrgreen: :evil: :mrgreen: :-D :mrgreen:

I almost forgot.  I should have included links to our parent organizations:

http://www.scientology.org/
http://www.tomcruisefan.com/
http://www.worldpath.net/~minstrel/

The problem is, this isn’t quite how it works in reality.  While it’s true the attacker can’t retreat from submerged subs, they can retreat before the subs submerge.

Now, I do see your worry and wonder whether CSub papers are built from TripleA playtesting data.

Guys, this is just silly.

Don’t you think that a CSub paper would be written under CSub rules?

We don’t write for LHTR, or TripleA, or DAAK, etc.  We write for our own system because it is the simplest and most coherent.

CSub rules are only one page long, and half of that is explaining the bid.  It is completely logical that we would use our own system, not someone else’s.

If you haven’t taken the time to understand the shortest rules around, then don’t be so quick to criticize.

Rules (last link):
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/files/

Peace

Just to be thorough and make the point:

Fricking subs…

Sorry, I should have covered this thread too:

Fricking subs…

Fricking subs…

@Magister:

That means good luck is MORE frequent than bad luck - but the rare bad luck can be much farther from the average than the good cases.

Good post!

You are close to the position of the paper, but I think we have to tighten up the terms.

When you write “good luck is MORE frequent than bad luck”, I’d argue that isn’t true if you take the median outcome as your starting point.  By definition, the median is the spot where the luck is neutral - half the outcomes are same/better, half the outcomes are same/worse.

The point is that the magnitude of the good luck is much smaller than the magnitude of the bad luck, so equally “lucky” dice, good or bad, will have a much bigger negative weight.  You don’t get more frequent unlucky dice, but the unlucky dice are more harmful than the good lucky dice.

A 90th percentile good outcome could net you +$3 from the median, while a 10th percentile bad outcome could net you -$11 from the median.  Those are outcomes of equal luck in terms of frequency, but the magnitude of deviation is quite different.

There is no psychological bias in this negative finding (though the phenomenon you mention is real and significant in its own right, and often overlooked in post-game dissections).  The point of the paper is that net bad outcomes are not imaginary; good players actually should get the shaft!

An objective observer will find that standard, perfectly normed dice will result in a significant net loss from the median outcomes over the course of a game (or within 10,000 runs of a battle).

This paper looked at the individual fights.  The next paper will measure the magnitude over the course of a game.

Peace

NPB: Well said.

@newpaintbrush:

1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa.

Tanks are STRONG!

Hey Hyo.

Solid concerns.  Let me address a couple of them.

I mean, wouldn’t you have to look at the odds for every battle for many, many games before you could say that?

1. The start of this paper actually began with the question of analyzing the role of luck in an individual game.  One of the other editors and I played a 6rnd game and then counted up the actual outcome vs. the calculated outcome for EVERY battle in the game (took a couple hours to do it right).  On the whole, we both thought the dice were quite unremarkable; neither of us thought we had experienced unusually bad outcomes (with the exception of one naval battle that was a major statistical outlier - this was a <=1% outcome that was removed from the stats).

But when we looked at the aggregate outcome for the game with the outlier battle removed, we BOTH had highly negative scores.  We were both surprised by that, and the result of that surprising finding was an analysis of outcome distributions as represtented in the paper.  BTW - there is a second paper in the works that talks about the role of luck at the game level instead of the battle level.

2. The data in the paper does cover a large number of tests.  All of the battle grids come from 10,000 runs of a battle under standard rules.  So by finding the median and then looking at possible deviations, you will find that in a favorable battle there is much more room for negative deviation than for positive deviation.  That is why the 10th percentile outcome hurts much worse than the 90th percentile outcome helps.

3. You mentioned you ran a 5k trial under LL.  That doesn’t compare to regular rules because LL flattens out the deviations.  LL dramatically compresses the results, and it is the peak-and-trough effect of the dice that is really signficant in showing the aggregate negative outcomes.  The point of LL is to “norm” the dice.

Does that explain the trials a bit better?  I could elaborate more if it would help.

Peace

Interesting response  :-D

Considering how much of the game discussions revolve around dice, bad dice, and low luck, I think there are some rather important points in the paper.

Not only do bad outcomes occur, but they should occur more often than good outcomes.  Essentially, good players are facing a negative-sum game with the dice.

The vast majority of conversations on dice have missed the central fact that when “luck” occurs, it is more likely to be bad than good.

And that is yet another reason why low luck is so different than regular Axis.  The risk management angle is pivotal to the standard game because the dice don’t deviate in a standard manner; they will tend to deviate negatively.

Peace

CSubP19: A conversation about mean/mode divergence with Mr. T

Read what people are saying about the latest Caspian Sub paper:

This is the NEW operating system for operational strategy.
-Bill Gates, MicroSoft founder

I feel I should throw away my books; Mr. T’s brilliance has put my work to shame.
-Stephen Hawkings, SupraGenius

Before reading this paper I was nothing but a hobo; now I’m a GENERAL!
-Tom Cruise, aspiring tall-man

A voice has been found.  One crying in the wilderness has called an audience to himself with a cry of knowledge and a cry of betterment.  Eloquence, thy name is T!
-James Lipton, host of Inside the Actor’s Studio

This magnum opus, this illuminating treatise, this revelation of hitherto secret cognition stands apart as a sentinel event in human history - an event whose significance is not unlike that of the Isle of Atlantis risen from the depths with the bones of her kings new-clothed in flesh.
-George F. Will, pundit

There was before the paper and then there was after the paper.  I don’t remember anything of value before the paper.
-NewPaintBrush, Scientologist

That’s hot.
Paris Hilton, flotsam

Get it here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/files/1PolicyPapers/

Ok, my last post on this  :-D

I’m not sure why it is so hard for people to see that:
A) The text is clear
B) The text is unambiguous

I understand you believe this doesn’t represent:
C) What the best rule is
D) What the author actually intended

I’m open to C, and I’d likely agree with D if I thought it was particularly relevant.  But I’m not sure why it is apparently so utterly, terribly difficult for people to agree with A and B.  The text says what the text says.  There is no mystery in the wording.  “Original owner” and “original controller” are surprisingly simple, comprehensible phrases.

The question was about what the rules state, not about what the rules should have stated, and not what the author intended to state.  The text is the text, and the text is clear even if you think it is wrong.

Ok.  Lots of other smart folks have opinions, so the floor is yours.  I’ve said my bit.

Peace

Howdy.

Krieghund, as always, is quite good at laying out the detail.  I always appreciate the effort he puts into attempting to clear up questions.

His interpretation of LHTR is correct; his interpretation of OOB rules is incorrect.

I believe he is correct in what was INTENDED to be in the rules, but that ignores what the rules actually say.

If that is not the case then it will be very easy to quote from the box rules the place that contradicts and clarifies the wording “original owner” found on page 25.

Not only do the rules state “original owner”, but the FAQ states “original controler”.

Let’s not confuse what the rule actually says with what we think it should say.

The rule as written is actually quite simple and quite clear.

Thanks

@newpaintbrush:

Moral of the story:  When reading CSub papers, be wary of conversion to Scientology.

You’d be surprised how often we hear this about our group.

Yeah!  Now that’s what I’m talking about!

Typing in small yellow font is EXACTLY the type of thing that should get you negative karma.

CHOKE ON IT NPB!

Back to just +2.

+3 net.  Real original.  Didn’t see that coming.

S.O.B….

This has got to be THE most UNFAIR situation EVER!

Look, currently I’m +7/-5 on Karma for a net of +2, while NewPaintBrush is +34/-61 for a net of -27.

I am 10 TIMES more obnoxious than he is, but where’s MY respect?

+2.  It’s insulting.  WHAT’S A BROTHER GOTTA DO???

I guess I gotta start killing owls.

Maybe I’ll make me some bald eagle nachos…

ya rly

LOL!

You know, I don’t know explicitly which rule you’re talking about, but I TOTALLY understand the frustration with LHTR.

:-D

@ncscswitch:

There was no reason to get accusatory or to try to belittle each other.  A simple “In LHTR yes, in OOB no” would have been sufficient to replace the last page of posts.

But Switch, how could I inflame my carpal tunnel syndrome without such long, enlightening posts?

:-D

Ok.  Consider it cooled.

Peace