Gray Fox wrote:If you don't mind posting a line of crap to newcomers, then here is a box of popcorn and please have a seat in the gallery, because I would like to talk to who thinks they actually know something and find out why they know it.
Gray Fox wrote:posting a line of crap to newcomers
Gray Fox wrote:If the replacement chit has a finite number of hits when it replaces a whole unit and random otherwise, then why is that?
Gray Fox wrote:1. A whole unit and the X number of replacement chits I could buy for the same price have the same number of hits too, because that would be the single real world situation that a game should simulate.
Gray Fox wrote:2. A chit has a random chance of being used up for less than its total number of hits and a definite chance of being used up for a whole unit. This would always match obervations because a player would either see a chit is used or it isn't. Over the long run, it will supposedly work out that a chit is worth what it costs, because otherwise the theory makes no sense.
Gray Fox wrote:In #1 you buy a chit with X number of hits and you get (wait for it) X number of hits. I know that is icredibly unsettling for some of you.
Gray Fox wrote:#2 closely matches observations, because it is formulated to closely match any obervation. However, to make sense, it approximates #1 over the long run. Hmmm...I'll get back to that.
Gray Fox wrote:So the crowd favorite is #2. However, to make sense, #2 over the long run would actually be #1 in disguise. That's where reason trumps belief.
Gray Fox wrote:Barksdale, you're saying that a chit has no hits at all, just a percentage chance of being use. Then why does its cost vary by unit type. Why doesn't one chit fit all?
GS, your math statement comes from where exactly?
Each model approximates a reality. If it is 5% incrementally to 95% chance of being used up, then the average chance is only 50%. Chits would only replace half the number of hits that you would get by buying whole units and not using any chits.
W.Barksdale wrote:I think this thread has run its course.
Gray Fox wrote:Your math statement comes from where in the program? It's a quote from where?
What I am starting to suspect is that it is hard coded and it is some version of a random number. This means that you get less milk than you pay for. Someone else worked that out almost a decade ago and the salespitch became, "Oh no, you actually get twice the number of hits in a chit (because we are not going to recode it)." Otherwise chits are a cheat and you should only build whole units and merge.
Captain_Orso wrote:I set up a test scenario...
W.Barksdale wrote:Thank you Captain_Orso.
W.Barksdale wrote:Some numerical analysis:
How many hits does an infantry replacement chit give out on average?
It appears that each chit can give out ~40 hits in an infantry element, as noted earlier.
W.Barksdale wrote:To be sure, is there any chance you could do that experiment ten more times? (This is so the law of large numbers will take affect, ~30 iterations)
W.Barksdale wrote:What is the probability that an infantry replacement chit will be spent?
You cannot answer this question with the current experiment because all of the chits have been spent.
To do this may I suggest you try a different experiment? Run a test with one infantry element for both sides, each missing one of their TOE 20 hits and each with one replacement chit, noting if the chit was spent. (30 times) Then repeat again with missing two of their TOE 20 hits. (30 times) After I see those results I can tell if more runs are needed with 3 missing hits etc.
Captain_Orso wrote:Actually, I don't see what the difference would be. With just one chit being used per turn, or 10 chits a couple hundred times, you still wind up with the same statistic. The only difference is in how long it takes to accumulate the information.
Captain_Orso wrote:It's not a question of wanting to know, it's a question of how to best discover it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests