I'm impressed. You made it eight games before you questioned the fairness of the rng. https://www.wargear.net/games/player/81349417

I don't have access to luck stats (standard player), but since this was such a short game before you surrendered ....

• G. had good initial placement to optimize attacks in South Am, getting the continent on his first turn (with one 3v3 attack, and the rest of the clean up with 4v3 each -- i.e. starting with an advantage)
• You made a logical attack to break SAm (7v3 (advantage to you) and 5v1 (advantage to you). Then you squandered Siam (3v3 (you were at a disadvantage)), took WUS (at advantage), and mad a somewhat wasted attack from Que>EUS (3v3 neutral) which succeeded (no losses), but that left CAm in position to attack both WUS and EUS. (If you'd left those alone, CAm would only be able to go against EUS (3 neutral) beofre picking at Ont or Que (3 of yours on each) -- in other words, you gave him an opening there.
• G took back SAm with 7v3 (his advantage), losing 2. That's a typical result. Then took NAm with 3v1 (again at an advantage) and SEur (3v1, yet again at an advantage).
• You then tried to break SAm again (not a bad idea) --- 7v2 (your advantage, no losses), then tried to continue in to Bra with 6v4 -- lost your first roll, now at 4v4, still your advantage. Lost again (you had the advantage but it was 3 dice vs 2 dice -- it's an advantage, but it's not as big as a 3dice vs 1dice -- i.e., you're almost as likely to lose as to win, and you got unlucky.) THEN you squandered your remaining NAf army with 2v4 (big disadvantage), took NAf handily with 3v1 (big advantage), and then tried to take CAm to consolidate NAm with a 4v2. Of course -- you failed with one bad roll (again, nothing unusual there) .
• Gal then took Africa with a 10v1, 9v2, 6v1, and 5v1 (no losses -- somewhat lucky, but totally reasonable, since 3 of the 4 attacks were at big advantage (3 dice vs 1)
• Then.... you fell apart. Tried to take CAm (5v3 -- advantage with 3v2 dice, split decision, then lost). THEN... you tried again to take CAm with 2v2 (disadvantage). Then 3v3 over in Asia (disadvantage), and finally 5v5 (came close). Now, to me it was a bit weird that you tried to take CAm which had 3 units, since if you had succeeded, you wouldn't have a great chance of taking Ven -- and when it came down to 2v2, if you'd succeeded, then Ven would have been in play with 4 units -- in other words, you were giving G the advantage. If you had been that concerned about getting a card, you would have had a much better shot if you'd thrown your 3 units on Alaska (to try to take Kam with 8v5) or on Greenland or China to have a 6v3 attack. You had no real hope of breaking SAm, which would have given G only 2 extra units anyway, and would have been in the running for the first set which *could* have given you a shot at braking into SAm, or causing havoc elsewhere that G would have had to deal with.

In other words... G had a great initial setup (luck of the draw), and you had a couple of bad rolls, which you then magnified in importance by making some really risky (disadvantaged) attacks, allowing G to clear you from Africa/Europe, thus closing his back door.

So yeah.... there's my take on answering your question "Come on can you see why someone would think I how did with your luck against me? can you answer me that at least?"

agwyvern wrote:I'm impressed. You made it eight games before you questioned the fairness of the rng. https://www.wargear.net/games/player/81349417" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/player/81349417

I don't have access to luck stats (standard player), but since this was such a short game before you surrendered ....

• G. had good initial placement to optimize attacks in South Am, getting the continent on his first turn (with one 3v3 attack, and the rest of the clean up with 4v3 each -- i.e. starting with an advantage)
• You made a logical attack to break SAm (7v3 (advantage to you) and 5v1 (advantage to you). Then you squandered Siam (3v3 (you were at a disadvantage)), took WUS (at advantage), and mad a somewhat wasted attack from Que>EUS (3v3 neutral) which succeeded (no losses), but that left CAm in position to attack both WUS and EUS. (If you'd left those alone, CAm would only be able to go against EUS (3 neutral) beofre picking at Ont or Que (3 of yours on each) -- in other words, you gave him an opening there.
• G took back SAm with 7v3 (his advantage), losing 2. That's a typical result. Then took NAm with 3v1 (again at an advantage) and SEur (3v1, yet again at an advantage).
• You then tried to break SAm again (not a bad idea) --- 7v2 (your advantage, no losses), then tried to continue in to Bra with 6v4 -- lost your first roll, now at 4v4, still your advantage. Lost again (you had the advantage but it was 3 dice vs 2 dice -- it's an advantage, but it's not as big as a 3dice vs 1dice -- i.e., you're almost as likely to lose as to win, and you got unlucky.) THEN you squandered your remaining NAf army with 2v4 (big disadvantage), took NAf handily with 3v1 (big advantage), and then tried to take CAm to consolidate NAm with a 4v2. Of course -- you failed with one bad roll (again, nothing unusual there) .
• Gal then took Africa with a 10v1, 9v2, 6v1, and 5v1 (no losses -- somewhat lucky, but totally reasonable, since 3 of the 4 attacks were at big advantage (3 dice vs 1)
• Then.... you fell apart. Tried to take CAm (5v3 -- advantage with 3v2 dice, split decision, then lost). THEN... you tried again to take CAm with 2v2 (disadvantage). Then 3v3 over in Asia (disadvantage), and finally 5v5 (came close). Now, to me it was a bit weird that you tried to take CAm which had 3 units, since if you had succeeded, you wouldn't have a great chance of taking Ven -- and when it came down to 2v2, if you'd succeeded, then Ven would have been in play with 4 units -- in other words, you were giving G the advantage. If you had been that concerned about getting a card, you would have had a much better shot if you'd thrown your 3 units on Alaska (to try to take Kam with 8v5) or on Greenland or China to have a 6v3 attack. You had no real hope of breaking SAm, which would have given G only 2 extra units anyway, and would have been in the running for the first set which *could* have given you a shot at braking into SAm, or causing havoc elsewhere that G would have had to deal with.

In other words... G had a great initial setup (luck of the draw), and you had a couple of bad rolls, which you then magnified in importance by making some really risky (disadvantaged) attacks, allowing G to clear you from Africa/Europe, thus closing his back door.

So yeah.... there's my take on answering your question "Come on can you see why someone would think I how did with your luck against me? can you answer me that at least?"

I just asked him the question, was not nasty about it. He didn't respond I left it at that. I just wanted his opinion, if you are going to read into everything I ask or do that is your prerogative. It was a simple question about his luck in our last two games. Nothing more nothing less

Mr. Cobber,

We could all care less who you are or what your claimed credentials are. Your arguments, and your arguments only, speak for themselves here. If you wish to make accusations you need to support them. If for instance you wish to claim that a certain sequence of rolls is extremely unlikely or suspect, please present us with some objectively sourced proof. I'm no mathematician, but I know enough about probability and statistics, and I'm able to use online simulator/calculators to engage in conversations and make posts about subjects like these. Right now you are only digging whatever reputation you have into a deeper hole.

If you have a problem with, and think a specific player is cheating, these forums are not the place to complain. Report abuse to Tom.

hootz72 wrote:

Yeah, that's you General Von Arsslichen back before you got yourself banned, remember?

https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be

I thought I was the only one who realized this.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:

Well I said I will not make any bad comments, and I will stick to that.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81348231

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81347059

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346776

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346135

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81345394

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81343225

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342757

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342755

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342754

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342480

et many, many al.

7 armies vs 6….always attack….be more aggressive? If you lose the first roll, perhaps stop….

I once did a 5v9 on that board and conquered it for the loss of 0. My opponent didn't even comment. Don't remember atm who it was.

lx260 wrote:hootz72 wrote:

Yeah, that's you General Von Arsslichen back before you got yourself banned, remember?

https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be

I thought I was the only one who realized this.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:

Well I said I will not make any bad comments, and I will stick to that.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81348231" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81348231

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81347059" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81347059

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346776" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346776

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346135" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346135

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81345394" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81345394

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81343225" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81343225

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342757" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342757

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342755" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342755

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342754" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342754

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342480" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342480

et many, many al.

This is crazy

smess2 wrote:lx260 wrote:hootz72 wrote:

Yeah, that's you General Von Arsslichen back before you got yourself banned, remember?

https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_2a9525be

I thought I was the only one who realized this.

Aussie Cobber 73 wrote:

Well I said I will not make any bad comments, and I will stick to that.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81348231" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81348231" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81348231

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81347059" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81347059" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81347059

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346776" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346776" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346776

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346135" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346135" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81346135

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81345394" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81345394" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81345394

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81343225" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81343225" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81343225

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342757" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342757" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342757

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342755" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342755" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342755

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342754" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342754" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342754

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342480" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342480" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81342480

et many, many al.

This is crazy

Firstly these were all before I made the promise, and secondly if you read the thread, you would of seen where I asked LX many times nicely do not join my games. He kept joining so I got aggressive. I know for a fact he asked many people not to joing his and they comply yet he cannot.

enough. stop. just stop.

weathertop wrote:enough. stop. just stop.

I have made mistake and apoligized to G, played a game with LX today with no abuse. I am happy not to see this thread again.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81353315

smh, that didn't take long. I wonder what M.O. translates to in Aussie speak.

Not sure what "M.O." stands for :-)

As for that not taking long... yeah, it was even faster than last time, I think. (Last time was a bout half a day I believe, this time was a few hours, max.)

*M.O. = Modus Operandi

Ah. Yeah, I knew that :-)

I wasn't seeing how that fit in the thread at the time, but now I do (helps to read things when awake rather than when nodding off).

Gone in less than 24 hours, Tom ain't messin' around