shieldgenerator7 wrote:you know what, seeing the dice stats, it makes me want to implement this suggestion because then I can use one of the rolls that have a more favorable outcome for me. So I change my mind. This is a good suggestion.
And I want to see this suggestion implemented so that people that don't understand statistics will make use of the option, allowing me to win more battles!
Seriously. If the defender has 2+ armies in a territory and you attack with one die, you will lose exactly one army 74.5% of the time and kill one army 25.5% of the time. You can call this a fractional kill of 0.255 and a loss of 0.745per roll, so you have an expected net loss of 0.49 armies every time you do this. If you attack with 2, you kill 2 armies 22.8% of the time, kill 1 and lose 1 44.8% of the time, and lose 2 32.4% of the time. This works out to a fractional kill of 0.904 and a loss of 1.096 per turn, or an expected net loss of 0.192 armies per attack roll. If you attack with 3 armies, you kill 2 37.2% of the time, kill 1 and lose 1 29.3% of the time, and lose 2 33.6% of the time. This gives a fractional expected kill of 1.037 and a loss of 0.965 per turn for a net kill rate of 0.072 armies per turn.
To simplify, if you roll 1 die against a defender with 2 die 100 times, you can expect to lose 49 more armies than you kill. If you roll 2 dice against a defender with 2 dice 100 times, you can expect to lose 19 more armies than you kill. If you roll the full 3 dice every time and go 100 battles against defenders with 2 dice, you can expect to kill 7 more armies than you lose.
For most people, the "luck" percentage for the 1 and 2 attacking dice is based on a very small sample size and is not generally a good indicator. Not to mention that mathematically, having good luck in the last few battles has exactly zero predictive power on how well your next roll is going to turn out.
) --- it's got SHIELDS!
