Gimp said:

*sigh*

No, I did not say initiative will always guarantee victory. I said there are certain scenarios that it does, especially in the last rounds of the game. I get your point, and you are right to some degree. Better playing wins games, but initiative can, and against a good opponent with great tactics is key to victory, or if your opponent gets bad rolls.

Also you can't really compare other games with dust. Those are completely different games with different stats and abilities.

Oh, and telling us winning games is just playing well is stating the obvious. It doesn't really help the conversation or moves it forward. In fact it kinda makes you look cocky. Sorry, but someone had to say it.

See other posters have given their point of views, given stats and argued intelligently, then you come here and tell us all that winning games is to play better. LOL, then you tell us you've won games without winning initiative, ok, good for you. Ps: It doesn't contribute to the topic, and I am sure everyone here at one point has won a game without initiative.

Btw, I just notice that in your other posts, it seems as though every thread you come in and say, "Guys, you need to play better."

While people have not specifically said 'winning initiative guarantees victory,' I did not say they had. Multiple comments about Black Ops being a 'killer' for the Axis players suggests that mind set, and also do little to advance the discussion. If others can make obvious remarks about their opinions, why should I restrict my comments because they are from an opposing view?

Games can come down to an important initiative roll, or to an important attack roll, but that is true in any game with variable initiative. A simple fact, but one that has been true in many games before DUST, and will be true for future games not yet dreamed of.

I see no reason not to compare similar games to DUST. DUST has a high level of lethality, but it is not the only game that does. DUST scenarios can come down to important initiative rolls, but it is not the only game that does. If balance is effective in similar games with greater variances in initiative capabilities, why is that not a valid argument that supports DUST's decision to do the same thing at a smaller scale?

I'm not trying to come across as cocky. I'm simply blunt. I play games well, but that is not germaine to the discussion. I state the obvious in a discussion when it appears some people involved are forgetting it. It fits in with the suggested lack of experience from comments like 'Black ops is a killer for the Axis when you actually play the game. ' As that suggests no actual experience for those with a differing opinion, as opposed to gaming experience establishing that differing opinion. That comes across as far more cocky and condescending to me.

I've found many players fixate on something they have a problem with while playing a game, and can develop the attitude that something is broken when it is simply something they have to learn to deal with. Once they learn to deal with it, it is no longer the issue they thought it was. Some people, however, will refuse to see past their initial objections; sometimes even after they have learned to deal with the issue. I don't know that is the issue with this, but I do know Black Ops is not the problem here that it apparently is with the people some play against. With there being several experienced and capable wargamers here, and having dealt with the situation in similar games, I see justification in the opinions I hold with nothing presented to actually back up the opposing opinion but unsubstantiated comments. It was pointed out that a 60/40 initiative split gave the Allies a 30% chance to win initiative three turns in a row. That was in error, as it would be less than 21.6% of the time. A 50/50 split does the same things 12.5% of the time, so we're talking about a 6.1% difference in results. That's just over one time in twenty for the difference. Being able to pull off a risky maneuver one time in twenty more often with Joe than without is not that significant to game play.

Perhaps because of those other games I referenced, I came into DUST with an understanding of what was needed to deal with Black Ops, and so never had a chance to develop resentment toward the ability. Several people I play with have similar experience, and a similar lack of concern over Black Ops. We have that attitude having actually played DUST, so we have played the game without finding Black Ops to be more than an initiative bonus that can be dealt with like other opposing abilities. I worry about Ozz and Lara far more than I worry about Joe.

I gave points of view, and I noted statistics. I brought up similar situations for similar games as outside reference for the situation, whether you approve of those considerations or not. I pointed out how little Bazooka Joe gives his squad for the points he costs in comparison to other heroes. I even took the time to correct significant errors you had stated in statistics on your posts.

As for me coming in every other thread to say people simply need to play better, I'd suggest you read more of my posts before suggesting that.

If you look back at your own posts, you thanked me for bringing actual factual points to this discussion while those points agreed with your opinions.

Annectdotes about winning or losing in spite of Black Ops, and discussions of differing opinions furthers the discussion far better than farcical attacks on the content of an opposing viewpoint's posts. Smear campaigns are popular in politics, but do nothing to advance consideration of game issues.

I made a math mistake on my post because I was in a hurry (I said 6.1% when it would have been 8.1% with those numbers), so I took the time to work up the actual stats. I hate making math errors, so please accept my apologies.

Bazooka Joe gives the Allies a 56.85% chance to win the initiative, compared to the Axis having a 43.15% chance to win.

That gives the Axis an 18.37% chance to win initiative three turns in a row, compared to an even initiative roll having a 12.5% chance. That means Joe gives a 5.87% better chance to win initiative three turns in a row than a normal roll. My error came much closer to the actual odds as a fortunate happenstance.

So one time in just over twenty Joe would give the Allies a three turn initiative bonus, while the Axis facing Joe would have an 8.03% chance instead of a 12.5% chance to do the same thing. That's still pretty close to one time in ten. Joe lets the Allies do it twice as often, but it still won't happen that often. Just over one time in six compared to a normal one time in eight, or the Axis reduced to one time in twelve against Joe.

Without worrying about a three turn run, Joe changes the odds by 6.85% per turn for the Allies to win initiative. Again, that's close to only one time in twenty. That's something to consider, but not an overwhelming shift in the odds.

Gimp said:

It comes down to how you understood the post. Yes they have made obvious remarks, whether or not you agree that it contributes is subjective. I however believe that you going into threads and telling people they need to play better does not contribute one itsy bisty bit. Yes you are free to post what ever the hell you want.

Any and all discussion you have about this topic that does not even relate to the original post can be dealt with via PM. So if you want we can continue our discussion there.

Gimp said:

For the record this is the part of the conversation that I can actually appreciate.

1. Dust has different stats

2. Dust has different tiles

3. Dust has different LOS rules

4. Dust has different abilities

5. Different health and damage distribution

6. Different rules

7.different movement

8. Different action phases

And you saying dust is comparable to other games because of it's lethality confuses me, please expound on that. How does that make it comparable?

Gimp said:

What? You cocky? please. The very opposite is proved by this statement alone.

Gimp said:

See at this point you aren't even reading the posts of the people. You are just criticizing people. I wonder if you are aware that there are strategies that rely solely on getting initiative wins. Whether or not you agree that is a sound tactic is your opinion, but there it is, it exists, there are effective ones that are risky, high risk high reward. If you have black ops, you can rely on those tactics.

Also you are comparing your playgroup to everyone else. Just because your playgroup doesn't use initiative advantage to take risks and form strategies doesn't mean that you can run your mouth and say we need to play better.

If you read the posts no one was complaining about initiative, this became an initiative issue when I said initiative wins games, and you yourself said it does, so there. Tada! it is done. we can move on now.

The suggestion was merely an experiment to see if the reactive fire system could be improved, no one said it was broken. If you don't like to participate in the experiment don't.

Gimp said:

It's called rounding off son, learnt that in the 3rd grade. Anyways I did mention I was rounding off some and not rounding of others, which affects the overall computation in the end, which I also said I shouldn't have done and I have made a mistake. Thank you for proving you don't really read other people's posts.

Gimp said:

Goddammit of course its going to be low, you roll it 3 turns in a row. And if you... wait... Did you just minus the percentage of two unrelated factors and then claim the end result became Joe's overall contribution? WOW. *facepalm* Statistics don't work like that.

Joe's actual contribution is 20% rounded off, per roll period.

Gimp said:

Nah, you just need to play better.

Gimp said:

I do appreciate your feedback I actually I have read your posts, they do give miniscule amounts of information but you seem to spend more time stroking your own ego then actually helping out.

Political smear campaigns? Are you high? Did you just compare our discussion of a suggestion for a better reactive fire to politics? Well I be damned...

Gimp said:

God. So if it becomes turn 4 then joe actually contributes only 4% per turn? LOL See your computation seems to have the right numbers, yet your logic behind them is really wrong.

Listen sir. 5 times out of 8 Black ops wins. There easy to understand. If the Black ops wins two in a row, and then loses on the 3rd, then your computation immediately resets back to 60% (rounded off), then wins the fourth round and the fifth, and loses the 6th, returns again to 60%, the Guy with the black ops knows that he has 60% chance again on the 7th since the computation was for 3 turns in a row.

Whether any post contributes to the discussion can be judged by individual readers. I read many that I find superfluous, but wouldn't suggest they not post, as the posters are free to express whatever opinion they feel on a forum. My opinion of those posts should not influence the posters, though I feel coutesy should have the posts contain some level of relevance to the topic.

Back considering other games;

DUST has different stats: All games use stats to reflect possibilities of success. If DUST gives a model with a rifle a 33% chance to score a hit, and another game gives an equivalent percentage using percentile dice, the net effect is the same. Stats are tools to generate specific possibilities for outcomes, so any tool that does the same job is similar.

DUST has different tiles: All games represent terrain in different ways, but it all deals with similar circumstances; does it block LOS, hinder movement, etc, and again has the same net effect.

DUST has different LOS rules: All games deal with LOS, and DUST is not that different than many. DUST uses center of tile to center of tile, and another game uses center of unit to center of unit, or point of square to point of square, or any other option, yet they all determine whether LOS exists, and what effects the present LOS will have on the game (ie: cover, blocked LOS, etc).

DUST has different abilities: Yet DUST also has abilities similar to many other games. If DUST gives a unit Fast, but another game gives a unit a 50% faster movement rate than other units, the effect is the same. The core elements are similar, even if abilities give different minor shifts from standard.

Different health and damage distribution: It's fairly common for games to allow normal infantry a single damage point, with some units having more, or special considerations to prevent damage. Some units are harder to damage, and some are easier. Again, the differences are close enough for the same net effect.

Different rules: All games have different rules to try and simulate the same concepts of combat. Again, if those rules are designed to simulate the same thing, and try to create a reasonable simulation of the same thing, they normally create similar chances of succeeding or failing at that same thing.

Different movement: All games allow units to move, with various units being able to move in different ways. Units will have to deal with cover terrain, building terrain, open terrain, impassable terrain, etc, and as simulations of realistic events, they tend to have similar net effects.

Different action phases: Some games are I Go You Go, some are alternating activation with units forced to have all models in a unit do the same thing, some are alternating activation with individual models able to act individually. Some games use initiative by individual unit. Some games allow reactions during enemy activations. All of the options available in DUST can be found in similar games with similar net effects.

I comment on DUST's lethality because where many games share similar possibilities to accomplish the other points you note, not all are as lethal as DUST. Many games give units a much better chance of surviving a hit than DUST, but others are just as dangerous. HIstory has had wars shift between offense being more capable, and defense being more capable. DUST definitely simulates a period where offense is stronger than defense.

Effectively, when I consider games, I 'round' capabilities. If a unit can accomplish a task with a similar chance of success, there is a linked similarity. If games carry enough similarities, the overall flow of the games becomes similar, and appropriate for comparison. Rounding capabilites to compare game effects is no stranger than rounding statistics to evaluate chances on a simpler level.

I stated I'm blunt, and that I play games well, but please keep the rest of the context, where I state that point is not germaine to the discussion (ie; does not apply). If I'm being cocky by saying that, then tell me, how much does it say about how often I win or lose? Playing games well simply means I make sure I understand the rules and use them, which, considering I teach games and run events would be rather important. Whether I win more often than Iose has not been addressed.

I criticize no one in my posts. I stated a situation I have encountered that I think may apply, and note that it may well not apply . If someone wants to take that as a criticism of themselves, that is their choice, but I specified I did not know that it applied. I noted a possibility, and that I had seen no hard data to support the suppositions posted by other people to allow further evaluation of their points. That criticizes the quality of information supplied to support a point, but not the poster of the point.

Keeping context, I noted winning initiative can win games, but it is not guaranteed to do so. Context is important, and should not be forgotten. I am also not the poster that segued this into a discussion of Black Ops and initiative. I was simply responding to other posts that brought it up. It isn't that odd for a thread to shift based on ongoing discussions, and that's all that happened here.

Rounding is an acceptable way to discuss numbers, but there is an important consideration on rounding: it is to be done at the end of calculations,rather than throughout the calculations. If you had noted a 20% chance for the Allies to win initiative three turns in a row, it would have been proper rounding (21.6% rounded down). By rounding early and continuing calculations, you skewed the data significantly and came up with 30%. That's a huge error to anyone who works with statistics.

As for taking the difference to figure out Joe's contribution, it is statistically appropriate. It's taking the change from original value. Joe giving a 57/43 initiative split gives the Allies a 14% advantage, but Joe has changed their initiative value 7%. It is a valid computational number, with significant value for comparison. The Allies have a 14% difference between their chances of winning initiative versus the Axis' chance, but that is accomplished by shifting their chance of winning only +7%. The Allies have a 7% greater chance to win, and the Axis have a 7% lower chance to win. That is the full change from their starting values. The total difference is imprtant, but the actual shift is more important for consideration. The Allies will win initiative 7% more often with Black Ops than they would without Black Ops.

I worry about Ozz and Lara more than Joe, but I didn't say I had a problem with either one. They are simply more of a tactical consideration once play begins than Joe is, because they have more direct contribution to combat. Anyone ignoring them because of worry over Joe with Black Ops would be rather foolish. No, that is not a statement that I think you do that. I have no idea how you play, and so have no way to judge your play style, nor will I care unless somehow we wind up playing against each other.

I didn't compare our discussion to political smear campaigns, I compared your handling of it to political smear campaigns. Attacking the poster instead of the content of the posts does nothing to advance the discussion. Attacking me and my style of posting does not change the statistical information I have presented to support my points.

Joe contributes 6.85% per turn to the Allies chance of winning initiative each turn. Each turn the Allies have a 57% chance of winning initiative, compared to a non-Black Ops chance of 50%, for a delta V of 7%. That is 14% higher than the adjusted Axis chance to win initiative, but the change in the Allies chance is only +7% from their initial capabilty.

Rounding at the end of calculations shows the Allies winning 57% of the time, or less than three times out of five. Five times out of eight would be 62.5% of the time, which is inaccurate when the actual percentages are considered. Rounding at the end of calculations to say 60/40 is close enough for some players, but again, should not be used if further considerations are to be calculated (ex: the chance for winning initiative three turns on a row). Rounding is inaccurate, but simple, and any data calculated from rounded data exacerbates the errors.

jowisu, Gimp...

tl;dr

Loophole Master said:

It would be easier to follow that if I knew what you meant.

Sorry to all for monopolizing forum space. I've been trying to stay civil, on topic, and make my points clear, but have obviously upset some people.

I'll try to be more succinct if the topic continues.

I have decided to ignore any other comments that don't make any sense, or do not contribute to the topic at all.

Gimp said:

I didn't read any of those because you can't compare dust to other games. They are different games, they have similarities, but the only applicable scenario in which you can effectively form an argument that a certain system was effective in a game and therefore can too be effective in dust is when the said game is 100% like dust, or at least the system is 100% similar to dust.

It's been what? Almost a week since you said there are many games that are similar to dust, but you have yet to post a single one to even uphold your argument.

Gimp said:

Well I be damned, so are you telling me when you calculated the 33.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333......% chance to roll a hit on each and every dice of your calculations you didn't round off till the end of your calculations? Where did you get a calculator that can show infinite numbers?

ALSO PLEASE READ THIS PART NICE AND WELL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SEEM TO REGISTER TO YOUR BRAIN. Got your attention? Thanks, I already stated that I made a mistake, way before we debated. You keep on repeating it, do want a medal? KK thanks, bye. It's done.

Gimp said:

*facepalm*

When Joe adds 7% to initiative he takes away 7% from the opposing player. Do you not understand how statistics work? The allied player will always, on every single initiative roll get a +33% chance to roll a hit.

Do you know why I rounded off? I'll tell you. Because some calculations showed a dice roll equivalent in decimals (example: 1.5) You can't slice a die in half now can you? Or do you?

For the record we are dealing with probabilities, nothing is ever accurate there. Every statistician knows that.

Also for the record, you are a hypocrite, you rounded off each and every equation you had with a 33% chance per die roll! LOL to you!

Gimp said:

Correct! But sadly you were the only one who seemed to take things out of context. I don't see anyone here having problems understanding what Major Mishap posted, except you.

Short enough for everyone to read now?

Whether DUST can be compared to other games obviously hits a nerve. I feel it can because they are dealing with the same kinds of situations. It's something I've done my entire gaming career, and have been comfortable with it. For me, a 33% chance to hit with a d6 is the same as a 33% chance to hit on percentile dice, and close enough to a 15+ with a d20 (30% chance), or even a 9+ on 2d6 (27% chance) for comparison. You aren't. That's fine. I don't mention other games because this is a FFG forum, and I won't specifically mention competing products on their home turf as a courtesy. I hadn't thought I needed to, as the point I was trying to make was clear from my end, and the other games are out there, and have been for years. I'll accept that you disagree, as your opinion on comparing similar game concepts across different games obviously differs from mine. I find it easier to understand something if I can relate it to other things, so I look for similarites. You don't, and that's fine for you. It works for me.

The object of rounding is to think about the level of accuracy you want to use, and calculate past that point, so your rounding will be valid. If you want to express results in non-decimal percentages, you have to calculate to at least 0.x so your rounding does not impact the validity of your final result as heavily. That's an engineering and mathematics understanding that's called significant digits, and not hypocrisy.

With hand calculations, you normally only go to the first digit past what you want to express, as in my example of using 0.x for something to be expressed without a decimal portion. With computer or calculator calculations, you can work to the limit of your computational devices' capabilities before you round without much problem normally. You don't need a calculator that calculates with infinite numbers unless you are trying to show results with infinite accuracy. Because I was showing results to two decimal places of precision, standard engineering and mathematical precision requirements meant I had to calculate using at least three decimal places for calculations.

When Joe adds 7% to the Allies chance of winning, the Axis loses 7% more often, which gives the 57/43 split I mentioned. That is obvious. Joe's shift in the Allies chance of winning initiative is only 7%, because without Joe, they win 50% of the time. With Joe, they win 57% of the time. How much more often do they win initiative? 7% more often.

There is now a 14% difference in the chances to win initiative between the two sides, but the Allies only win 7% more often than they do without Joe. A 7% increase in winning is a 14% increase in the Allies' overall chance to win initiative, but that is 14% of 50% (their starting chance to win) for a net 7% increase.

I do understand how statistics work, and because you were taking this debate so personally, I verified my data with an engineer who works with statistics for a living.

Sir... Think of it this way, you cannot say a 3 point goal will be great in a football game because it works in a basketball game. There are similarities, a referee, players, fouls, certain rules and conduct that must be upheld, but they are two different games.

Gimp said:

In probabilities if you give an advantage you must take it from somewhere if you are computing for a 100% equation.

He takes an advantage away, making it more difficult for the Axis to win initiative games. Please try to understand that. In your computation you showed an advantage of 7% to the Allies, but you did not include the 7% decrease in the Axis which is unfair.

Understand that without joe Axis roll 50% of the time, but with Joe they will win initiative 43% of the time. A decrease.

If you can't understand that then this discussion is over.

Plus you rounded off some equations and didn't round off some, that makes your equation fallible.

Gimp said:

An engineer eh, Chemical Engineer? Civil? Electrical? Mechanical? Cause non of those professions seem to focus on statistics for a living...

Word of advice, look for a statistician instead.

jowisu said:

But you can still compare things between the games. it is possible to compare things like the size/shape of the ball, number of people on the field, size of pitch, etc. Gimp never said that things from other games will be great in Dust Tactics because they work in that game. He just looks at comparable rules and situations to see what the solution in other games is (that is what I got from his posts anyway).

jowisu said:

Perhaps Gimp knows a Statistical Engineer? asq.org/quality-progress/2010/09/statistics-roundtable/the-statistical-engineer.html

Just a small section of the above website page:
"Many engineers working in processing industries often are overwhelmed by the amount of data available to them. Until recently, most industries collected only a small amount of information on their processes. Process engineers had few observations on a small number of critical variables that helped make decisions on how the process was to be operated.

That situation has changed. With the development of electronic data-gathering systems, such as distributed control systems, process engineers now have many observations available on a multitude of variables. They also can store these observations electronically for study and review at any time.

This task of gathering and maintaining observations has added an extra dimension to a process engineer’s job. It has created a new role—statistical engineer—that entails being able to transform the data observations into useful process information."

Oh hey flourish welcome back to the discussion.

FlorisH said:

Yes you can compare things between games.

Yes, Gimp said that in other games another player has a 30% chance to win initiative and that game is balanced, therefore the Initiative bonus that Joe gives is balanced. I disagreed because the other games have different systems, and therefore the balance of the games cannot be comparable in that situation.

FlorisH said:

I read the link, did my research. A statistical Engineer is just a fancy word for a statistician. Never-the-less that profession does exist, and he does the same job as a statistician. If that is what Gimp meant, and he does know a statistician. Good. But that doesn't change the fact that his perception of statistics were wrong. .

Read his posts, anyone who understands statistics will disagree with it.

Gimps maths are way off target, 7% difference my arse. Even if Black Ops only effects one initiative roll in a normal 8 round game that means Allies win 5 and Axis 3 times. So axis win 38% of the time and 62% - slightly more than 7%. Also its not taking into account where the additional dice rolled brings an Allied loss to a draw and then finally that win. I've lost count of how many multiple rolls we make and get draws, until that win is achieved thanks to one extra dice.

I have been waiting for an axis hero who wins initiative on all ties.

Maybe would be a good trait for a SSU hero too.

Now THAT would be much more powerful than Black Ops.

Loophole Master said:

Still cool though. Hero would have to be expensive.

Please read my math. I noted there is a 57/43 split. That gives a 14% difference between the initiative possibilities for the two sides. 57%-43%=14% has been rather clear in all of my discussion. That 14% difference has never been in doubt, except perhaps for Major Mishap who doesn't like my numbers.

My point in on the degree of change . That is what the 14% is. The Allies have a 14% greater chance to win, and the Axis has a 14% greater chance to lose. That is a 14% change in their chance to win or lose without Joe present . Their chance to win or lose without Joe present is 50%. 14% of 50% is 7%.

Look at the numbers. When Joe changes the odds split, the Allies goe from a 50/50 chance to win to a 57/43 chance to win. They add 7% to their chance to win, while the Axis loses 7% from their chance to win. They go from a 50% chance to win up to a 57% chance to win.

The fact that there is now a 14% difference between the two sides' chance of winning comes from the Allies having a 7% greater chance of winning than they did before. Their chance to win has changed by 7%, while the difference between chances to win has changed 14%.

I acknowledged I checked my numbers with an outside source as a hint you might want to do the same, because you are not seeing the point I am trying to make. Since you asked, the engineer I spoke with is a systems engineer that works with high tech measuring devices, creating the circuit boards to run cameras that are used to measure things within fractions of a wavelength of light using lasers, but mostly creating the software to run those cameras and do the calculations needed to use the values gained. So yes, he does work with statistics, even if he is not just a statistician. A statistician is simply a mathematician. An engineer is someone who frequently uses that same math, with the same level of understanding, in an applied form. Both can work with statistics, but the engineer is building something with it. A statistician getting an answer wrong is embarassing. An engineer getting an answer wrong can be a catastrophe.

As for me rounding to varying degrees, my initial calculations were all run to the same degree of accuracy, and I presented them to two decimal places of accuracy, even though the calculations were run to a much higher level of accuracy. Since those numbers were presented, if I now reference 7% instead of 6.85%, it is simply rounding that value further to shorten my typing. That does not add fallibility to my numbers, it only simplifies the value I am using to a slightly shorter form. Rounding does not always have to be to the same level when the core values have been established. I can call the initiative split a 60/40 split, and be correct due to rounding, but if I make further calculations about how often the Allies can win three turns in a row, I have to go back to the core calculation numbers instead of using the rounded result.

As for my math, it does consider the chance of a tie initiative roll requiring a re-roll. There is a 30.36% chance of a tied roll with Black Ops, but that does not impact the chance of winning or losing the roll, because it forces a re-roll. If DUST used a mechanic from other games, where ties go to the person who lost the previous round, it would, but as it simply forces another roll, it does not impact the final 57/43 split.

Considering my willingness to compare games, I'd suggest we drop that from the discussion. Since you aren't even quoting what I said correctly, and it can't impact the current topic without you understaning what I meant, we might as well leave it out of the discussion. I noted other games that give an initiative bonus similar to or greater than what Joe gives in DUST maintain balance, so I do not see Joe's contribution as game breaking. You don't want to accept that people can work with similarities between games, so we don't have to deal with the similarities between games. I can save that idea for discussions with people who understand what I mean and are willing to work with it. That's more of a game design concept, and this is largely a game play discussion.

A hero that wins ties would be huge compared to Black Ops. Even with Black Ops, ties happen 30.36% of the time, so that plus winning normally would make Black Ops look really weak in comparison.

I said a statistician making an error could be an embarassment, and I can acknowledge being embarassed. My apologies, as I hate making math errors and giving erroneous information. I wish someone had taken the time to calculate and notice my actual error before now. It would have helped much more than insults without data.

I went back over my spreadsheet for calculations, and found a typo that changes some of the final numbers. Again, I apologize for running a discussion on erroneous figures. The fault is mine, and not something from the engineer I verified other data with.

Black Ops gives the Allies a 63.76% chance to win initiative, for a 13.76% increase in their odds to win. Still a 60/40 split, but now rounded from the opposite side from 63.76/36.24. 64/36 is still only a 14% increase in the Allies chance to win, with a total change of 28% from their original 50% chance to win. The Allies will win just over one time in eight more often than without Black Ops.

That gives the Allies a 25.92% chance to win initiative three turns in a row, with the Axis having a 4.76% chance to do the same, compared to a 12.5% chance to do so normally.

There is still a 30.36% chance of a tie on each roll with Black Ops.

With the suggested 'win on ties' power, the player would win initiative 55.60% versus Black Ops, and 66.83% of the time without Black Ops. That's higher than Black Ops versus a non-Black Ops force, but it also overpowers Black Ops when it is present.