I believe Andernut once told me he lost 34 men to a 3 army?

i remember losing 30+ to a 3 once up in Siberia somewhere.

Andernut wrote:I recall Squint posting cumulative luck graphs from his games years ago, do we have such a tool that can troll your games for that information or did he do that manually?

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2173/Luck_Cumulative_Chart_Wargear_Warfare_1_v_1_games_SquintGnome

Spider wrote:Andernut wrote:I recall Squint posting cumulative luck graphs from his games years ago, do we have such a tool that can troll your games for that information or did he do that manually?

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2173/Luck_Cumulative_Chart_Wargear_Warfare_1_v_1_games_SquintGnome" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2173/Luck_Cumulative_Chart_Wargear_Warfare_1_v_1_games_SquintGnome

Yeah, that's the thread though I don't know if he was manually obtaining the results or using an aggregating tool.

I'm not sure if this is manual or using a tool. I expected this was put together manually; not an insignificant amount of work.

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2173/Luck_Cumulative_Chart_Wargear_Warfare_1_v_1_games_SquintGnome

pretty sure i remember him saying that he put it together manually.

Thanks everyone for your input on the this topic. Let play and let the dice roll

-90 (minus 90) luck, this may be my new record!

Dang! Sounds painful :-)

Sounds like a D&D 2e game I played a few weeks back. If only *low* rolls had value on attacks, I would have fared *far* better (I 'lost' pretty much every roll I made all game)

And sounds like Risk in general --- it's..... risky.

Yeah, those dice are a whole other player on the board!

There's a fallacy at work here.

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy

A minus 90 luck stat is just not that unlucky if there are enough rolls, and in a game where you roll the dice over 17,500 times a luck stat of -100 is only moderately unlucky. Here's an actual game that demonstrates the point.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/641384

At one point Mad Bomber was -100,43 points in the Luck Stats He finished the game with a luck stat of -93.29 .AND HE WON THE GAME

The luck stat is a great number but it needs context.. I don't know if it's a good solution, but I did suggest a way to give it that in this thread..

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/5463/Luck_Stat_--%3E_Luck_Rating

M57 wrote:There's a fallacy at work here.

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy

A minus 90 luck stat is just not that unlucky if there are enough rolls, and in a game where you roll the dice over 17,500 times a luck stat of -100 is only moderately unlucky. Here's an actual game that demonstrates the point.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/641384" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/641384

At one point Mad Bomber was -100,43 points in the Luck Stats He finished the game with a luck stat of -93.29 .AND HE WON THE GAME

The luck stat is a great number but it needs context.. I don't know if it's a good solution, but I did suggest a way to give it that in this thread..

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/5463/Luck_Stat_--%3E_Luck_Rating" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/5463/Luck_Stat_--%3E_Luck_Rating

Context?

CONTEXT??????

We don't need no steenking context!

We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts! I demand that I may or may not be agwyvern!

We demand the right to rant, whinge, and complain about the non-randomness of the RNG as evidenced by its non-balanced randomness!

LOL - Whinge all you want, but I will only cry along with your sob stories if you give me context.

M57 wrote:There's a fallacy at work here.

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:luck_stats#the_most_common_luck_stat_fallacy

A minus 90 luck stat is just not that unlucky if there are enough rolls, and in a game where you roll the dice over 17,500 times a luck stat of -100 is only moderately unlucky. Here's an actual game that demonstrates the point.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/641384" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/641384

At one point Mad Bomber was -100,43 points in the Luck Stats He finished the game with a luck stat of -93.29 .AND HE WON THE GAME

The luck stat is a great number but it needs context.. I don't know if it's a good solution, but I did suggest a way to give it that in this thread..

https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/5463/Luck_Stat_--%3E_Luck_Rating" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/5463/Luck_Stat_--%3E_Luck_Rating

Look at the details. Mad Bomber had 8915 kills and 8595 deaths. He took 320 armies more than he lost. The luck stat is completely wrong.

So you're saying that the old adage is absolutely true! There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!

(we worry too much about stats here... it's a game! :D)

agwyvern wrote:So you're saying that the old adage is absolutely true! There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!

(we worry too much about stats here... it's a game! :D)

Absolutely. I do check my luck stats on occasion, but only to confirm that my best laid plans were 'legitimately' foiled by the dice, and I'm totally OK with that. Those forum threads where folks complain about, or even accuse the dice of malicious intent both entertain and annoy me. Apparently so much so that I ended up adding the wiki article I pointed to on the subject. On the other hand I do have to confess that I love stats, and I love them even more when they're relevant.

Did I or did not lose 93 more men than I should have?

dice mods may have factored/not factored in?

is this luck chart correct?

Mad Bomber wrote:Did I or did not lose 93 more men than I should have?

dice mods may have factored/not factored in?

is this luck chart correct?

The main part of your "bad luck" in this game is from attacking - they're given as -74.20 attacklng and -19.09 defending.

The only dice mod here is 6v7 attack. There is no attacking with advantage. I can see from the log you did a fair bit of 6v7 attacks, which I can only assume is perfectly normal.

In total from attacking you took 5869 and lost 5309. The exact calculation would have to factor in how often you met a 1 army, with greater chance of success, and how often you did a 6v7, but regardless I can tell you that for this game you had plus dice attacking (minus dice defending looks right). -74.20 is a compound error of some sort, I've seen them before, no idea what causes them but the resulting luck charts are worthless. Can't say who was lucky and who wasn't in that game, not without going into minute detail and spending a lot of time on it.

Litotes wrote:

The only dice mod here is 6v7 attack. There is no attacking with advantage.

Yes, MB had many more kills than deaths when attacking, but it still may not have been as many as he should have gotten. Remember, all attacks on the same level are standard 6v6 dice.

M57 wrote:Litotes wrote:

The only dice mod here is 6v7 attack. There is no attacking with advantage.

Yes, MB had many more kills than deaths when attacking, but it still may not have been as many as he should have gotten. Remember, all attacks on the same level are standard 6v6 dice.

Looking through older games on this board one gets struck how often the winner of big games is quoted with awful luck. Just look at this. -74 in a much shorter game.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/308442

-26 here, comparatively lucky

https://www.wargear.net/games/luck/281193

-47 for ogg

https://www.wargear.net/games/luck/235878

Another ogg effort, "only" -16 here but -45 in the attacking component

https://www.wargear.net/games/luck/797279