Tournament of Champions (Season 4) for AA 50 Anniversary '41 version
-
@redrum The latest rulebook (of the reprint) elaborates even more on this subject:
*You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier. If it does include noncombat moves by a carrier, then the carrier cannot move in the Combat Move phase.
In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You cannot, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a possible safe landing zone for any fighter. Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example, aircraft carriers
may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if doing so leaves air units with no place to land after combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). However, during Noncombat Movement you must provide for safe landing of as many air units as remains possible after all combats are resolved.If you declared that a carrier will move during the Noncombat Move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter moved in the Combat Move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the Noncombat Move phase unless the fighter has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then or a combat required to clear an intervening sea zone failed to do so. Likewise, if you declared that a new carrier will be mobilized to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter, it must be mobilized in that sea zone unless the fighter has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed.*
-
@Panther yes in dice it is a moot point you can assume acs will live. We cant do that in ll thus the calc of .1%
-
-
@general_zod yes he said that as calculated by battle calc using ll
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future! Sir Winston Churchill
-
What ever it is fine. As long as its clearly stated to avoid arguments or blunders.
-
@general_zod I haven't added above because I was hoping Delt had a copy of the long winded version.
but after all this i will post the short version above -
@prastle
@prastle, I re-read the replies, I can't find the reference to below. Can you quote it for me. Thanks.@prastle said in Tournament of Champions (Season 4) for AA 50 Anniversary '41 version:
@general_zod yes he said that as calculated by battle calc using ll
-
@general_zod read the edited final line in the first post above taken from v2 toc
-
@prastle Those definitely aren't the standard rules and relying on the battle calc results in any part of the rules is a bad idea. Given that @Deltium organized the tournament though its up to him.
While the official A&A rules that I and @Panther posted are originally written based on dice, I believe its a pretty accepted standard that LL is treated the same as dice when doing carrier/fighter movement. Though I wish the official rules stated it differently and didn't reference dice rolls but that they just need to enter the battle locations.
-
@redrum what you are saying is impossible red since in ll they can add to an auto hit
thus
you cant assume the defending units all missed
thus deltium's .1% rule -
@redrum also to clarify the last 3 tocs have been played this way as well I believe bayders but i can check with him to confirm that if you wish?
-
Here's one more for ya. If we do in fact use calculations to determine eligible CM's in a LL game.
I'm definitely not a mathematician so, correct me if I'm wrong.
The calculations inside the triple A battle calculator are not guaranteed to give the same result each time a battle is calculated as long as there's some luck involved. There is variance in results between calculations of the same battle. How much also depends on the run counts setting in the BC.
Can we also address how to handle this as well. (I suggest arbitration if ever got to this.)
eg. My calculation says 100% not possible, and opponents calculation says 99.1% not possible. (Yikes, this also involves a bit of honor system and trust. )
What is the official allowable margin of discrepancies between calculations anyways?
What shall we set run counts setting to?
Btw for obvious reasons, I wish I didn't think of this one, lol. But what can I say, I like to share.
-
@general_zod Exactly that's what I was getting at. The calc just does a number of simulations and you can even change the default number of simulations. Which is why the carrier should just have to enter battle and not worry about if it has >0% survival chance.
-
@redrum
Yes. It does seem like the best solution of our imperfect possibilities. As related to LL and dice actually. -
I will leave this to @Deltium to answer. But you are both forgetting it is low luck it is quite easy to get a 0% in low luck
-
@General_Zod @redrum either way hepps is here stop arguing something 10 years old and lets conti
-
@prastle For small battles, its easier to figure out. If I attack 10 destroyers with 1 carrier then I know it'll die and has 0% chance. But this can get very complex if you have large scale battles and then you have to decide even if you say have a 1% win chance could the carrier even be one of the remaining units given that to get that 1% you probably have to use an OOL which kills the carrier. So I'm sure you can imagine that it just leaves things open to ambiguity.
TripleA Developer with a Passion for AI: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/105/ai-development-discussion-and-feedback
-
@redrum it is mainly there for the 1 ac fly two planes thing it is very rare it comes in contention
but if ya need a judge np -
@redrum also i just confirmed with bayder all his tocs had same rule as well with ll
I guess we could ask @wirkey about the ones he ran if ya wish.If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future! Sir Winston Churchill
-
@redrum also your example is over examining the rule. We are not saying you cant do that or require ool. we are saying there must be a slimiest chance the ac survives. Now stop arguing my fr and lets conti everyone is in lobby,
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login