That bug should be fixed now. I also made it so you can now use any number of defending fighters in a naval battle, since as someone pointed out the calc could be used half way into a battle once the carriers are already sunk.
Sweet, thanks. This is - by far - the best odds calc I’ve used.
Interesting. It doesn’t appear to be the Anniversary edition, though. It looks like it’s another version of Revised. It says in the description that there are five world powers in the game. Also, it’s only going to be $35.
I’m looking for an experienced opponent to play a '41 game with NO and w/o tech. I will be playing the Axis.
Seeing as how we are on the subject of capitals, I have a question that came up in my tourney game thread…
If, say, Germany has units in reserve (purchased but not able to be placed) and Germany is captured, what happens to those units?
I voted draw, because they are drawings. :wink:
Crash lab manager - hence the avatar. Please refrain from making any dummy jokes. :wink:
I get the 404 even when refreshing. This is happening at different IPs and using different browsers.
I’m not seeing that. From where are you doing the search? Send the URL, please.
I’m using the “Search” feature in the bar at the top left of the page.
I get a 404 Not Found when trying to do a search.
Things aren’t rosy in China anymore. The recession is hitting them too. There is an article in the Fortune magazine issue that was just released about the current state of the economy in China. I haven’t read the whole article, but analysts claim that GDP receded in Q4 2008 there.
Maybe we should start another thread on this issue since it is going off-topic.
I heard about this afterwards as well. I think it was just as well we didn’t hear about it. It would have probably caused panic and hysteria in those prone to such things.
I think it is a non-issue that we didn’t hear about it:
1. It didn’t hit us.
2. Astronomers knew it wasn’t going to hit as shortly after they knew it was there.
3. What could we have done about it anyway?
BTW, using Paris in the subject did catch my attention, but only because I knew it wasn’t to hit anywhere near Paris…
@Cmdr:
How does your chart stack compared to total US Debt (including citizens) to domestics and foreigners?
Just curious.
The pie chart, as a whole, accounts for ~$3.1 trillion. Our total Federal debt as of Feb. 2009 is ~$10.8 trillion. The Federal public debt is ~$6.5 trillion. Public debt is all federal debt held by states, corporations, individuals, and foreign governments, but does not include intragovernmental debt obligations or debt held in the Social Security Trust Fund.
@Cmdr:
Anyway, you asked for my definition of “better.”
Better: To be a better health care system it must have superior technology, superior medical knowledge, superior medicine, superior infant and elderly survival rates and/or superior disease and injury survival rates.
Obviously, a system does not have to be superior in all aspects to be better than another system. Being superior in significantly more aspects than the other system would allow the system to be called better.
For instance, if the Nation of Ik had a universal health care system but had no aspirin or other drugs to treat illnesses and injuries, the doctors were trained witch doctors with no university level medical training, but everyone had equal access to medical treatments, it would not be “better” than the system in a Nation of Ugtir where every medical professional has to graduate in the top 50% of their class to get a medical license, drugs and medical technology is plentiful and available, but people had to chose between hospital and doctor A vs hospital and doctor B where A may be more or less expensive and qualified than B is.
In the above example, with two made up, non-existent nations as examples, it is obvious that the health care system in Ugtir is far superior, and thus better, than system in Ik.
Given that Ugtir has a far superior system, one which is not perfect, one where some people just plain out cannot afford the absolute best medicine available for their needs, but one where the medicine needed at least exists to be bought, why would they voluntarily hamstring themselves and move to the system employed by Ik?
I agree that, by your definition, our health care system is better (than most at any rate). Somebody else’s definition may also include the ability to keep costs down so that everybody can afford it. But that is a semantic argument, which will get us nowhere fast. What you seem to be assuming, though, is that the quality of care will necessarily decrease as an effect of nationalization. How did you reach this assumption?
EDIT - Your last post pretty much answers my question. Commentary to follow…
Revise what I posted. China owns 22% of the debt owned by foreign nations. This translates to only ~6% of our total debt.
@Cmdr:
Not really looking at GDP. China owns the United States by owning our debt. So how can we possibly be richer than they are?
GDP sure seems to me like an adequate measure of national wealth. You’re also blowing our debt owned by China way out of proportion. As of 11/08, China only owns 22% of our debt, or $682 billion. How is 682 > 14,330???
@Cmdr:
Anyway, not saying our system is the best system possible, but it is better than the systems that are centrally controlled by an agency without competition. (Whether that is a government, a company or another single controlling agency)
Define “better”.
@Cmdr:
However, I do believe that the best method of health care for our citizenry is the one we currently have because the alternative - at least the one we know about - is far worse, as demonstrated in Scott Atlas’ report. Just about every nation that is currently employing a centrally organized health care plan (regardless of who the central controlling agency is) has a worse plan than what we currently have.
I can’t fathom saying that our system is the best one, especially when ever-greater numbers of people are forced to go without health care and more companies are forced to exclude health insurance from their benefits just because of the costs (There are some good statistics over at the NCHC)
Not every nation that has nationalized health care is having problems with their system. There are several countries in the Far East that have systems that appear to work well. Take Japan, for instance. It works because of the culture there. Ultimately, health care will work if it addresses the culture of the nation it is being implemented into. There are a myriad of ways to implement it, so to think of nationalized health care as a single static entity isn’t quite correct since there are many flavors around the world.
@Cmdr:
I do not believe that America is the “richest country in the world.” I believe China might have that honor now.
Nope. Not even close. According to the CIA World Factbook, GDP for 2008:
USA - 14,330,000,000,000
China - 4,222,000,000,000
No other single country even approaches the GDP of the US. Only the European Union as a whole has a greater GDP.
I would be the first to agree that the health care in the US is first rate. The current “crisis” doesn’t have anything to do with the quality of such care. It’s all in the costs. Since 2000, health care costs have risen 58% while earnings have only increased 3% (Source: Kaiser Family Foundation / Bureau of Labor Statistics).
I have looked into the issue more, and I believe with relative certainty that it is correct (the defender stats that is). Here’s my proof:
Let’s take a relatively easy scenario:
Attacker - 3 inf, 3 art, 3 tk
Defender - 8 inf, 1 art, 1 tk
With Detail Cutoff @ 1.0%, this is what you get:
Notice the odd shape similar to what we have been talking about.
Now go to this odds calc: http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html
Type in the same number of units and run the sim. The win/loss/draw percentages are the same, so these two methods agree in that regard. Look at the average IPC loss (25). Now calculate the average IPC loss from the results in the image. You do that by multiplying the IPCs lost by the percentage chance of that happening. So you end up with:
(6)(.0133) + (9)(.0346) + (12)(.0641) + …. etc.
The result is ~25.
I will reiterate that you need to look at the probability of 0 units remaining as not being part of the distribution. It is merely the chance of losing the battle. The chance of winning the battle is actually greater, but is distributed over the number of units you can expect to survive. Therefore, each row will individually be less than the ‘0 units’ line.
Ah-ha! The Details Cutoff merely allows you to remove probabilities that fall below what you select. If, for example, you have the slider set to 1%, it will not display results that have a probability of occurring of < 1%
@Unknown:
There are a few problems here. First, notice that there is no probability listed for 0 units surviving on the attacking side, even though the main interface of the program says the defender wins over a third of the time. How can the defender win if the attacker has units remaining (including land units) every time?
Second, look at the column for 3 units remaining. The probability is listed as 67.51%, higher than the combined probability of the attacker winning! This obviously does not add up.
Finally, if you look at the distribution for surviving defenders, you’ll see that you get an approximately normal looking distribution for 2-8 units, but for 0 units, it spikes to 65.62%. The probability of 1 unit remaining is not even listed.
So something is definitely not right here. I think its only a bug with the “Must take territory” setting thouigh, as it appears to run fine when this isn’t selected.
I agree that, in your first two points, there would appear to be an error. Your last point, though, is affected by the “Details Cutoff” slider, whatever that does. Move the slider to 0.0% and look at the details again. It paints a more comprehensive picture of the possible battle outcomes. For the defender, there are now probabilities for survival of 0 units to all 10 units.
The skewed distribution is correct, I believe. I have seen this shape many times before when using the sim during previous games and in battles with several different unit types (when not using “Must Take Territory”). The chance of 0 units surviving (losing the battle) coincides with the chance of victory for the attacker - with some small apparent error. The number of units remaining if the defender wins the battle then takes a normal-looking distribution. So you have to first separate winning and losing the battle, then think of how many units you have left.
I think the sim may be correct, but the reason it is is not intuitive. In order to capture the territory, you must have one of the 4 land units survive. These units are the first to go without the “Must Take Territory” option checked, therefore the probability of capturing the territory is quite low. Click on the “Details” and you will see the histogram only gives you those 4 units’ survival probabilities. Once you lose those 4 units, the sim must consider the battle over.
Now with the “Must Take Territory” box checked, it will allow the battle go on longer due to retention of at least 1 land unit, having taken air units as casualties.