Greasemonkey Script Assault Odds

[BaldAdonis]

I love the disdainful tone of your references to this script, especially since this is version 1.0.0. I find it unnecessary, especially from you.
...
I cannot tell if you're asking for improvements to this script or attempting to point out where Gambit might be better.

Not trying to cause a ruckus, I just know you like tinkering with changes and I figured I'd let you know what I'd find most useful. None of those things I suggested work in Gambit, which is why I'd like to see them in a new script.

Yes it is possible to stage multiple attacks to the same territory and I fail to see any reason to estimate the odds when it is clearly possible to do it exactly.

What I mean is can it account for the additional attacks from a secondary territory? Suppose I've got two stacks of 6, and I want to kill a guy with 15, who also has 10 on the other side of the board. What I'd like to do is deploy some troops onto one stack of 6, and put the rest on the other side of the board to finish him. So what I need to know is how to distribute those troops so that my odds will be about the same on both sides, but in order to figure that out, I'd want to know how well my 6 stack will do against 15, before I attack with the bigger force. I'd be silly to assume this is a usual attack of Xv15 and Yv10, and place 3-4 extra armies on X when the smaller 6 can do that much damage.

[chipv]

Great suggestion , will be done.

I will allow Attackers to have multiple numbers so for your example

6,6 v 15
15 v 10

and you can tinker with that.

[Timminz]

Great suggestion , will be done.

I will allow Attackers to have multiple numbers so for your example

6,6 v 15
15 v 10

and you can tinker with that.

That's awesome! As for the bombardment, would it be possible to use a number in brackets (or something similar), on the quick calc section, and just not reduce the attacking force for a win?

ex: 15 v 2,4,(3), 10

[yeti_c]

I love it - Bombardments don't need to be the end of a run though...

C.

[chipv]

I love it - Bombardments don't need to be the end of a run though...

C.

It is not possible to continue a sequence of attacks from a bombarded territory.
That's the reason for the current limitation.

[chipv]

Great suggestion , will be done.

I will allow Attackers to have multiple numbers so for your example

6,6 v 15
15 v 10

and you can tinker with that.

That's awesome! As for the bombardment, would it be possible to use a number in brackets (or something similar), on the quick calc section, and just not reduce the attacking force for a win?

ex: 15 v 2,4,(3), 10

Give me some more, Timminz, I don't get what you mean.
So (3) is bombard, and don't reduce attacking force by one?

[MrBenn]

You wouldn;t be able to continue to attack from the bombarded territory, but you could choose another target from the 'bombardee'

[chipv]

You wouldn;t be able to continue to attack from the bombarded territory, but you could choose another target from the 'bombardee'

If you mean bombarder then yes this is open and has been suggested before.
This is not a function of bombardment but allowing split attack paths (so doesn't necessarily have to have bombardment)

For emphasis, this is the not the same as 2 separate paths.

Key problem is how to specify this. Same problem for multiple attackers. Still pondering.

[Timminz]

Perhaps I'm a bit confused, as I have done any coding in a while, but wouldn't adding bombardment into the quick calc be fairly simple? I assume, when you've conquered a territory in the current quick calc, you would count the attacking force as decreasing by 1 (left behind), and continue to the next territory to attack in the sequence. Wouldn't it just be a matter of being able to distinguish between an attack/bombard (why I recommended using brackets), and not decreasing the force by 1 on the bombard, since you don't need to leave any behind? With my previous example.

ex: 15 v 2,4,(3), 10

starting with an stack of 15, I wish to attack a territory with 2, then one with 4, then bombard a spot with 3, and finally attack a 10.

[chipv]

Perhaps I'm a bit confused, as I have done any coding in a while, but wouldn't adding bombardment into the quick calc be fairly simple? I assume, when you've conquered a territory in the current quick calc, you would count the attacking force as decreasing by 1 (left behind), and continue to the next territory to attack in the sequence. Wouldn't it just be a matter of being able to distinguish between an attack/bombard (why I recommended using brackets), and not decreasing the force by 1 on the bombard, since you don't need to leave any behind? With my previous example.

ex: 15 v 2,4,(3), 10

starting with an stack of 15, I wish to attack a territory with 2, then one with 4, then bombard a spot with 3, and finally attack a 10.

So (3) is bombard, and don't reduce attacking force by one?

No coding problem. Just how to allow user to specify no advance. As I said this is not confined to just bombardment.
The difference with bombardment is zero advance whereas attack and no advance is 1 advance but continue on another sequence.
Currently only attack and all advance -1 can be done.

[Timminz]

No coding problem. Just how to allow user to specify no advance. As I said this is not confined to just bombardment.
The difference with bombardment is zero advance whereas attack and no advance is 1 advance but continue on another sequence.
Currently only attack and all advance -1 can be done.

On the quick calc? I can see how that happens in the attack-route drop-downs, but with the quick one, it doesn't matter if I advance all and leave one behind, or advance zero (1 automatically), and then attack somewhere else from the first terit. All that would be needed is the ability to distinguish between having to populate the new terit or not, wouldn't it?

[chipv]

No coding problem. Just how to allow user to specify no advance. As I said this is not confined to just bombardment.
The difference with bombardment is zero advance whereas attack and no advance is 1 advance but continue on another sequence.
Currently only attack and all advance -1 can be done.

On the quick calc? I can see how that happens in the attack-route drop-downs, but with the quick one, it doesn't matter if I advance all and leave one behind, or advance zero (1 automatically), and then attack somewhere else from the first terit. All that would be needed is the ability to distinguish between having to populate the new terit or not, wouldn't it?

The probabilities are different, so I need to be able to distinguish by looking at what the user has specified.
Using a bracket for non-advancement after bombard is fine.
What happens when someone asks for the same feature with regular attacks? I need to distinguish between bombardment non-advance
and regular attack non-advance because the number of armies being left behind are different and so are the probabilities.

[Timminz]

The probabilities are different, so I need to be able to distinguish by looking at what the user has specified.
Using a bracket for non-advancement after bombard is fine.
What happens when someone asks for the same feature with regular attacks? I need to distinguish between bombardment non-advance and regular attack non-advance because the number of armies being left behind are different and so are the probabilities.

The only 2 options I see, when looking at continuing the attack path with as many armies as possible are;
1- advance all/none (these are the same thing, if you're going to continue the attack from wherever the stack is)
2- bombard

[chipv]

The probabilities are different, so I need to be able to distinguish by looking at what the user has specified.
Using a bracket for non-advancement after bombard is fine.
What happens when someone asks for the same feature with regular attacks? I need to distinguish between bombardment non-advance and regular attack non-advance because the number of armies being left behind are different and so are the probabilities.

The only 2 options I see, when looking at continuing the attack path with as many armies as possible are;
1- advance all/none (these are the same thing, if you're going to continue the attack from wherever the stack is)
2- bombard

This is true, I agree with this, very well explained.
Bombard with brackets will be added.

[Timminz]

Bombard with brackets will be added.

Sweet!