Moderator: Tech Team
prismsaber wrote:chip,
can't believe you and foxy decided to post this for public use. This is a weapon that could make every cook and striper who doesn't know what they're doing dangerous.
In the hands of anyone who "doesn't know what they're doing" I'm guessing they are likely to continue being most dangerous to themselveschipv wrote:prismsaber wrote:chip,
can't believe you and foxy decided to post this for public use. This is a weapon that could make every cook and striper who doesn't know what they're doing dangerous.
Don't blame Foxy for having an awesome idea. I wrote this script and informed her I was publishing it, decision was mine, idea was hers,so you can blame me.
What do you want me to do, render the script useless?
ahunda wrote:Very nice.
Referring to our little chat on Messenger last night:
IĀ“d still like the order of terrs in the 1st drop-down window to be changed to alphabetical order.
Or maybe even better: All my terrs on top (in alphabetical order), then the rest of the terrs (in alphabetical order) ?
Aha. "Noted"chipv wrote:I have to point out there is already a format option to show percentages.
Sounds promising. I'm already looking forward to an updatechipv wrote:About your second suggestion, I am currently bashing my head doing that, as I did with the improved calculation.
Most of the problem stems around releasing load on the browser, the maths is reasonably straightforward.
I will come up with something, but at the moment it may require an additional button to produce the extra stats as I
don't want to load the overall calculation as it's fast and needs to be.
It has been deliberately designed to be faster than other similar calculators and it will also handle larger numbers of armies.
BaldAdonis wrote:It has been deliberately designed to be faster than other similar calculators and it will also handle larger numbers of armies.
How do you mean? Without parsing your code, I assume it's using the exact same algorithm as Gambit (or at least a very similar one which runs in the same time). Is it just because you drop all the intermediate steps where the attack fails, instead of counting up exactly how close it came to success?
Is there any support for bombardment? This is the only thing that's difficult to estimate with Gambit.
Can you arrange to stop attacks after a certain point? That is, I'd want to know the odds of winning without dropping below 3 armies, as I would with an autoattack. Gambit will tell me this by giving a distribution of the number of surviving armies, but this script just spits out the victory odds.
Can you stage multiple attacks to the same territory? This comes up a lot in team games, and in some smaller multiplayer escalating games, where you'll want to use a smaller force to weaken your opponent, then conquer the territory with your majority. You can get reasonable estimates by adding the smaller force to the larger one (less 3), but this ends up way off when the enemies force is small in comparison to yours, or by counting the attack as two stages, and averaging the number of surviving armies the enemy has after your smaller force attacks (only works in Gambit obviously, because you need to know how many survive).
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.chipv wrote: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.
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 wrote: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.
chipv wrote: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.
yeti_c wrote:I love it - Bombardments don't need to be the end of a run though...
C.
Timminz wrote:chipv wrote: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
MrBenn wrote:You wouldn;t be able to continue to attack from the bombarded territory, but you could choose another target from the 'bombardee'
Timminz wrote:ex: 15 v 2,4,(3), 10
Timminz wrote: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.Timminz wrote: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 wrote:So (3) is bombard, and don't reduce attacking force by one?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users