Seeing all the awesome armies arrayed at Adepticon has got me inspired to start on a new project. I've spend over a year working on my Tau, and now that I'm don't it feels weird to not have anything to work on.
I could start working on a Flames of War army. While I like the rules system, I'm just not inspired to paint a dull olive drab army that looks just like every one else's. I could start on Dust Warfare, but that has the same problem as FoW. Green allies, Grey Germans, boring boring boring. If only battlefront would release a 15 mm sci-fi version of FoW with space elves.
I'd like to re-visit my Eldar, but I'm hating my paint scheme and quality on them. I want to scrap most of it and start from scratch. The army will still suck, so I'm inclined to not give my Eldar any love until GW gives them some first.
I could start another army. Dark Eldar and Necrons both interest me in terms of their aesthetic. I defiantly don't want to do anything in power armor.
I'm worried about 6th edition and don't want to jump into a project with GW primed to throw-up all over themselves in a few months.
Showing posts with label FoW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FoW. Show all posts
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Just the lies, no statistics
I noticed a link to this article on TheBack40K's blog roll. It was pretty basic probability theory stuff, but I noticed an error in his calculations.
He had calculated the probability of a Sherman killing a Stug at range as 5.5556 percent. This is correct, but when he applied it to a whole platoon firing ten shots he said the probability was 55.556 percent. Or, that you would kill "Half a Stug." This is wrong. You don't just multiply the probability on one thing by ten to get the probability of one thing happening in ten chances.
A correct way to determine this is to use a binomial probability calculation. If you do this you get the probability of at least 1 kill as 43%. At least 2 kills is 10%. At least 3 Kills is 1.5%. I even pointed him to this handy online calculator to figure out these probabilities very quickly.
Basically, I was just telling him his math was wrong and showed him how to correct it.
He responded:
Never mind that in his article he said that:
But, you're giving the wrong impression about the odds. You say that you should kill half a stug, but that's not useful. If they see 3 of their stugs die when they where confident that not even one should die, you haven't really helped them. It's more useful to say that approximately half the time you will loose at least one.
He had calculated the probability of a Sherman killing a Stug at range as 5.5556 percent. This is correct, but when he applied it to a whole platoon firing ten shots he said the probability was 55.556 percent. Or, that you would kill "Half a Stug." This is wrong. You don't just multiply the probability on one thing by ten to get the probability of one thing happening in ten chances.
A correct way to determine this is to use a binomial probability calculation. If you do this you get the probability of at least 1 kill as 43%. At least 2 kills is 10%. At least 3 Kills is 1.5%. I even pointed him to this handy online calculator to figure out these probabilities very quickly.
Basically, I was just telling him his math was wrong and showed him how to correct it.
He responded:
Hi CaulynDarr,So he thinks that being able to quickly get the wrong answer is better than being able to quickly get the right answer.
The purpose of Expected Value is to give you a rough calculation for tactical purposes. It will not give you the exact percentage chance to kill one or more StuG's (in this case).
The main reason for using EV's over Binomial Calculations in Flames of War is that it gives you a single value instead of a set of values, allowing you to compare results between disparate sets of information (eg. Standing RoF vs Moving RoF). The second reason is that, with practice, you can begin to calculate EV's on the fly - or at least approximate them.
If you want to work out Binomial Calculation on the fly, then go for it - this class is not for you :D
Never mind that in his article he said that:
I should also mention that these types of equations should all be worked out before each game - taking 10-20 minutes to figure out the exact odds in the middle of a round might negatively impact your Sportsmanship score!My response:
But, you're giving the wrong impression about the odds. You say that you should kill half a stug, but that's not useful. If they see 3 of their stugs die when they where confident that not even one should die, you haven't really helped them. It's more useful to say that approximately half the time you will loose at least one.
With a smart phone and the link I provided, you can figure these values out on the fly.
His counter-response is a bit longer, so I'll just summarize. He says that since the chance of loosing a Stug is less than half then he's not worried about the loss of any more Stugs. This is exactly the misconception I warned about in my response. I was trying to show that loosing one Stug is an average coin toss, and losing more than one is in the realm of possibility. The math he provided makes it look like Stugs are nigh invincible compared to Shermans when in half of your games you'll be loosing 1 or 2 a turn. Half is less than one, and saying you will kill half a Stug can easily be misinterpreted as you shouldn't be able to kill any. A bit different than saying that in 1 out of 10 volleys you will probably lose 2 Stugs to a single volley from a platoon of Shermans. In fact, over the course of 10 volleys you will probably loose 5 or 6 Stugs. If you start playing around with the number of Shermans and the number of kills you are wanting to get, you can learn some real interesting things.
He then goes on to say that my math may be more accurate, but is less useful. BS! More data is never less useful. Not my fault if you can't comprehend the additional information.
Then someone dumps this useful gem:
So comments are only for stupid inane stuff, not for, you-know, useful comments.
The article was to teach people how to do statistics in the context of a miniature games. It's wrong and counterproductive to point out that you are teaching bad statistics? Who do you think is doing the more harm here?
If you are going to write an article about statistics, do the homework and get it right. At least point out where you are fudging the numbers. People get so bent out of shape when they play miniature games and unlikely stuff happens. It's a bad understanding of probability that causes it, and this article just propagates the same misunderstanding of probability and statistics that is all too common.
BTW, the only appropriate comments to this post are to tell me how awesome I am, or to ask me how I manage to be so awesome.
His counter-response is a bit longer, so I'll just summarize. He says that since the chance of loosing a Stug is less than half then he's not worried about the loss of any more Stugs. This is exactly the misconception I warned about in my response. I was trying to show that loosing one Stug is an average coin toss, and losing more than one is in the realm of possibility. The math he provided makes it look like Stugs are nigh invincible compared to Shermans when in half of your games you'll be loosing 1 or 2 a turn. Half is less than one, and saying you will kill half a Stug can easily be misinterpreted as you shouldn't be able to kill any. A bit different than saying that in 1 out of 10 volleys you will probably lose 2 Stugs to a single volley from a platoon of Shermans. In fact, over the course of 10 volleys you will probably loose 5 or 6 Stugs. If you start playing around with the number of Shermans and the number of kills you are wanting to get, you can learn some real interesting things.
He then goes on to say that my math may be more accurate, but is less useful. BS! More data is never less useful. Not my fault if you can't comprehend the additional information.
Then someone dumps this useful gem:
Just a friendly reminder.. the 'Comments' on posts are for quick questions and 'thanks!' type stuff. Remember no 'counter-articles' to the articles. If you want a long discussion, please head over the the forums and write pages and pages of point/counter-point til your little fingers bleed. Enjoy!
So comments are only for stupid inane stuff, not for, you-know, useful comments.
The article was to teach people how to do statistics in the context of a miniature games. It's wrong and counterproductive to point out that you are teaching bad statistics? Who do you think is doing the more harm here?
If you are going to write an article about statistics, do the homework and get it right. At least point out where you are fudging the numbers. People get so bent out of shape when they play miniature games and unlikely stuff happens. It's a bad understanding of probability that causes it, and this article just propagates the same misunderstanding of probability and statistics that is all too common.
BTW, the only appropriate comments to this post are to tell me how awesome I am, or to ask me how I manage to be so awesome.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Strategic Planning
It's looking increasingly good that I'll have my Tau painted and ready for Adepticon. That means it time to start thinking about my next project. I'm 90% positive that I'm going to build a Flames of War British army. I'm still trying to decide exactly what lists to build.
For late war I've decided not to do Grenadier Guards. They are little costly point wise, and you end up paying Panzer IV prices for Sherman Tanks. Sherman Tanks with really motivated skilled crews, but Shermans none the less. I really Like Cromwell tanks, and there are two pretty cool lists based on those. The first is 7th Armored out of the Villers-Bocage book. The other is an Armored Recce squadron out of the 11th Armored online briefing. They get to field Challenger tanks; a version of the Cromwell that mounts the same OQF 17 pdr main gun as the Sherman Fireflies.
I think I'm going to hold off on building either of the late war list. Plastic Solider Company's website indicates that lots of the Allied equipment I'd need for these lists is in the pipe, so I'll wait until I can get my dozen Cromwells for $50 instead $120.
I'm going to build a Mid-War list first. I'll be stuck having to buy mostly metals depending on the list, but cheaper alternatives are not waiting on the horizon. I bought the North Africa book from G2D4 on Saturday, and have been trying to decide on a list I like the best.
My initial though was to build an 8th Army Light Armored Squadron. I pointed out a 1500 point list that runs a dozed Challengers of various marks, three Lees, a Motor Platoon, a section of Royal Horse Artillery, and a small anti-aircraft battery. I think the list would look really cool on the table top, but it does have some downsides. Game play wise the Challengers are armed with pop-guns, and I'm going to have to get really good at maneuvering for close range side shots. It's also going to be a fairly expensive army to build. It's going to cost me around 300 dollars to put the list together as I can't get any of the tanks I need for less than 8 dollars a piece.
I'm considering other lists for the time being. The Tunisia and Italy Armored Squadrons use Shermans that I can get from Plastic Solider Company, and if I fudge the paint coloring a little I can use the same tanks and equipment for Late War Europe. I used to play a German Grenadier list, so I'm also considering building an infantry company. A Commando list would be interesting too.
While the other list make more economic sense or may play better, that Light Armored Squadron has the coolness factor. It may fail utterly on the tabletop, but it would look awesome doing it!
For late war I've decided not to do Grenadier Guards. They are little costly point wise, and you end up paying Panzer IV prices for Sherman Tanks. Sherman Tanks with really motivated skilled crews, but Shermans none the less. I really Like Cromwell tanks, and there are two pretty cool lists based on those. The first is 7th Armored out of the Villers-Bocage book. The other is an Armored Recce squadron out of the 11th Armored online briefing. They get to field Challenger tanks; a version of the Cromwell that mounts the same OQF 17 pdr main gun as the Sherman Fireflies.
I think I'm going to hold off on building either of the late war list. Plastic Solider Company's website indicates that lots of the Allied equipment I'd need for these lists is in the pipe, so I'll wait until I can get my dozen Cromwells for $50 instead $120.
I'm going to build a Mid-War list first. I'll be stuck having to buy mostly metals depending on the list, but cheaper alternatives are not waiting on the horizon. I bought the North Africa book from G2D4 on Saturday, and have been trying to decide on a list I like the best.
My initial though was to build an 8th Army Light Armored Squadron. I pointed out a 1500 point list that runs a dozed Challengers of various marks, three Lees, a Motor Platoon, a section of Royal Horse Artillery, and a small anti-aircraft battery. I think the list would look really cool on the table top, but it does have some downsides. Game play wise the Challengers are armed with pop-guns, and I'm going to have to get really good at maneuvering for close range side shots. It's also going to be a fairly expensive army to build. It's going to cost me around 300 dollars to put the list together as I can't get any of the tanks I need for less than 8 dollars a piece.
I'm considering other lists for the time being. The Tunisia and Italy Armored Squadrons use Shermans that I can get from Plastic Solider Company, and if I fudge the paint coloring a little I can use the same tanks and equipment for Late War Europe. I used to play a German Grenadier list, so I'm also considering building an infantry company. A Commando list would be interesting too.
While the other list make more economic sense or may play better, that Light Armored Squadron has the coolness factor. It may fail utterly on the tabletop, but it would look awesome doing it!
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
I just can't fight this feeeeeeling anymooooore
Since Battlefront was good enough to give away the 3rd edition of the Flames of War rules, I picked up a copy. I'm seriously considering building a new army after Adepticon. My preference is a British armored company. Plastic Solider Company is releasing a Firefly kit soon, so that will certainly make a late war list very practical in terms of cost. Unfortunately there is little overlap between mid war and late war British equipment, so I will have to practically build a second army for mid-war.
I was considering building a 7th Armored list for late war, but there's a cool online briefing for Grenadier Guards. They can take American paras as allies in their lists plus can have up to two Fireflies per tank platoon. It wouldn't be too hard to do both since the only real difference would bee needing more Sherman V's for the Gaurds and more Cromwells for the 7th.
For mid-war I want to build something with lots of Crusader tanks. They just look so damn cool. I've read that they are overpriced currently, but I don't care.
I was considering building a 7th Armored list for late war, but there's a cool online briefing for Grenadier Guards. They can take American paras as allies in their lists plus can have up to two Fireflies per tank platoon. It wouldn't be too hard to do both since the only real difference would bee needing more Sherman V's for the Gaurds and more Cromwells for the 7th.
For mid-war I want to build something with lots of Crusader tanks. They just look so damn cool. I've read that they are overpriced currently, but I don't care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)