"Key to Victory: Math Skills" Topic

TMP member Gone to Pot observes:

Once again gents, it's mostly down to maths. Mathematicians or people who are good at maths win more games. Simples

Do you agree?

I would tend to agree.

Absolutely.

Rick

Disagree. Mostly victory comes down to eyeing the lay of the land and taking the measure of one's opponent. Kind of like the real thing. Math comes into play when you try to figure the odds (as determined by the rules) before sending your hoplites charging into that mass of Persians.

No, he with the lucky die rolls can make or break a battle in short order. My brother and I have been the focal point of those who are good with math being defeated by those who have lucky die rolls at critical stages of the battle. Math is simply used to predict the common outcome and it can give you some advantages if you understand it. On the other hand, sometimes the pell-mell charge of the Light Brigade straight through the enemy formation can wreak havoc if the die rolls fall in your favor. So, while I am not particularly good at math (I'm certainly no mathematician!), I do fairly well to excellent on the tabletop in part because for some reason fortune smiles upon my die rolls at critical stages of the games.

"I'd rather have a lucky general than a good general" – attributed to Napoleon.

I disagree, I played against two friends for years. One was bad at math, one was very good, better than me. I beat them both on a regular basis. The one that was bad at math was better at the game than the one that was good.

I agree with Gone to Pot – it's maths not math!

Maths are helpful, but risk assessment is equally so.

A billiards player who can reliably make a shot from across the table, or on a single bank is "good at maths".

If you sink a ball and leave yourself in position to make the next shot, or take a shot and fail leaving your opponent no clear pockets, you're more likely to win.

A friend's twelve year old son liked to play 'Heroes of Might and Magic' a game we were playing on our LAN at the time. He brought the boy over to watch and pick up some pointers.

After respectfully observing for a while he began to ask questions, why I did this or that, the answer almost always involved relatively simple arithmetical calculations and probability. In a while he began to see that the veneer of the game was irrelevant, dragons and wights and wizards were really just so many factors dressed in fantastical skins.

I thought this would prove enlightening but instead he was horrified, I had shown what lay behind the curtain of romance and he didn't like it.

"It's not heroes of might and magic," he said in disgust " it's heroes of math and money!"

I disagree -- it is understanding the period and the rules, not math and percentages. When a good player acts they have reason and purpose. The guy in our group who claims to understand the "odds" at all times (and he does constantly refer to whether or not the most recent event was according to the statistically probable result) is not particularily effective as a player, certainly not at the top of the group.

The guys who are good know the history and tactics of the period we are playing, act to achieve goals within the battle, and accept risk of loss to achieve gain. Knowing the statistically probable outcome of each game event can be a hinderance, it is not necessarilly a help.

I find that calculating the odds is very usefull, but not alway perfect…..chance does play a role, but sometimes its tactics that matter. It really depends on the game being played.

Sometimes, it also comes down to who has the loaded dice …. thats why I usually leave my dice in the car so that we both have to use the same dice. This irritates a few, but usually its those that have their favorite dice types that roll either high or low, and they alternate when they need a different result. So if they really don't want me to use their dice, and refuse to use mine, they can find someone else to play with.

Math? Completely irrelevant. History and tactics, just as irrelevant. It's a game and like any game it's run on emotion.

Math might be handy but the dice screw that up to beat the band.

The key to victory is knowing what the guy across the way is thinking, watching carefully where his eyes move, watching carefully what he does with his dice, with his game materials and what he's interested in (his eyes dart when the subject is mentioned. When does he get tongue tied? When does he not express himself well? When is his body posture "showing" or "shamming" Does he seem to not know what to do with his hands? Is he staring off into space? Is he babbling about other rule sets? -- Like Poker or bridge, it's in a players tells. Probability and math skills are nice, but completely irrelevant when it comes to basic emotions. Manipulating him with your own gestures, words, and semiotics is more important.

All players walk up to a game with a set of expectations of how things will go. Yanking that comfortable rug out from under his feet is the first step to victory. Even better is to get him to believe yo have won the game before it even starts-- so long as YOU don't believe it.

Maths – some
Geometry (whih is Maths I know) – some
emotion – some
luck – some
history and tactics – some

It varies a lot between the games (and you choose which)

Really a bit surprised at the number of people here deprecating the value of math skills, and I find their arguments very hard to accept. It absolutely comes down to mathematics in the end, whether you attribute that to some mysterious, romanticized skill or not. Yes, the dice add a certain degree of doubt to the outcome (not always that much, either). But if you understand those numbers and what the possible outcomes are, you will know when to push the attack and when not to. And it doesn't matter if it's casting a spell or shooting a gun, it all boils down to the likelihood of an effect.

I'm pretty sure I can beat anyone who thinks 1+1 = 12 (depending on the rules, sometimes low rolls are good).

The key to victory is knowing what the guy across the way is thinking

It depends on the game. I didn't mean to imply by my little anecdote that calculation is always the most important thing. Playing the players is sometimes useful and sometimes it falls flat. If there is a general rule it's try to make the game's outcome depend on what you do better than the enemy. The friend I generally play against does calculation better than me, I do insight (see the relations between different parts of the game) better than him. When we start a new game I tend to win, the more often we play the more he wins.

I can occasionally win by playing on his character and he on mine but we both know each other and ourselves too well for that to work often. When you know the other player sees you as aggressive or cautious you can use that to your advantage but he won't be caught out regularly.

I've always thought that its somehow unethical to work out the odds before committing to an attack. Of course one has a vague idea, eg the veterans will likely beat the raw unit, but to calculate the percentages seems dreary.

It varies a lot between the games (and you choose which)

It depends on the game.

I agree with Yesthatphil and T Meier on this. The influence of maths and calculation skills on outcome is a function of the system.

The two things that I find that emphasize the importance of maths and calculation (assuming you are not standing by while an opponent runs a full simulation of every possible action and outcome before taking a turn) are the magnitude of individual actions and the simplicity of the calculation.

In some cases, the memorization of large amounts of data (what data that is depends on the game) can increase the power of maths and calculation.

Generally, I don't play to win. I play to play. So I play to what I percieve to be the temprament of the force I am playing.

Not so much math as statistics, a subset of all encompassing math. If you have a good grasp on statistics as it pertains to the game and have good tactics as it pertains to the game, then you will probably win many, many battles. Math is one key to winning but it is not the only key.

In a game where there are a few critical rolls that can bring defeat or victory then knowing the probabilities can help but not much.

In games where there are few truly critical points but a steady build-up of advantage over your opponent then knowing the maths can help to make the best decisions. Cancelled out of course if your opponent is able to do the same – which mine usually are.

'Playing the players' is a great ploy but it can lose you mates if you do it too often.

Can't see what emotion has to do with it though. I expect my tin troopers to be fired up with martial zeal, not their General – he stays calm and calculating – and safe !!!

It's simple.

If I need a '6' to win & he needs a '2' that gives me a 4% advantage.

Yes.

Time of arrival = math
Number of troops = math

If you don't understand geometry, you are going to die.

(And, in the real world, logistics = math)

> I'm pretty sure I can beat anyone who thinks 1+1 = 12

It's (OFM, you there?) the ones that know 1+1 = 10 that are the real killers.

Depending on the game being good at math is not important, passable is helpful.

There are 10 types of folks. Those that know 1+1=10 and those that don't. ;)

Having conducted a statistical analysis of all the available data, one can conclude that Gone to Pot's conclusion has a 97.85% chance of being complete and utter e.

83.2% of statistics used in casual conversation are actually made up by the speaker.

No comment

(removed)

For some of the reasons already suggested I think good math skills help, though I trust my instincts a great deal. I also think people with good math skills, call it an analytical mind, have a better understanding of spacial relationships. Which makes getting a good feel for the lay of the land, calculating the angle for torpedoes, visualizing how the planes will come together, etc. all that much easier.

So although I hated math in school, I'd rather have good math skills than not.

So over here in the colonies we call it math, on the other side of the pond it's maths?

I dunno, I'm pretty good at math and a friend who is math challenged used to whup me often before I learned some lessons from him.

These am some pretty dam' boring games ya playin'.

Knowing your plusses and guzzintas is a big advantage,

Math skills?
You mean some simple calculations like adding/subtracting modifiers, and calculating probabilities? I would hardly call that math – but rather arithmetic. Anyway, it does help you (of course), but as some have pointed out, if you focus on that, it takes the soul out of the game. Wargaming is all about theme and visuals – otherwise we would all be playing Go.

BTW, many wargamers have no clue about things like variance – which is at least as essential in calculating probabilities than the expected value, what some understand. "I rolled 6 D6s, and not a single 6 showed up! This game sucks! It's not realistic!"

No.
My brother is brilliant at math. He wins no more games than I do.

As to whether good math skills (what the hell is maths?) may or may not allow a player to win more games is debatable. But understanding how math, or arithmetic, works within a game can determine whether the game is worth playing a second time. I just played a set of rules on Sunday that were so easily predictable that I saw from turn one that the side I was playing on had no chance of achieving our objective based on simple probability. So, no, I would not volunteer to play that set of rules again – but I did play out the game as a courtesy to the person who ran the game and the other players. And I would only rate my math skills as average. So, perhaps the proper question should be – does the mathematical – or arithmetic – basis of a set of rules impact its playability and or make it so predictable as to remove playability? I think that a more pertinent question.

Nope. Math was always my worst subject in school and I have won plenty (maybe I was using more "math" than I thought). I have also played with people who were a wiz at math and ended up over thinking it all and lost. Interesting thought though, how good were some of the great generals of history when it came to math?

It depends a lot on the game, but certainly with some games, being competent at maths (and in particular probability) definitely helps. It is probably mainly true for ancients and medieval games. To be a good player you need to know the probabilities involved, and have a good idea of the probable outcome of any match-up. Then you can aim for the best match-ups and try to avoid the bad ones.
I'm good at maths and in our group I certainly win a lot more games that I lose, but against other good players in tournaments I generally come about in the middle.

And math and maths are both short for mathematics. Seeing as mathematics is plural, it probably makes a lot more sense to say maths.

I was never a math whiz, but I do alright on the gaming table.

it's maths not math!

Once one has chosen to abbreviate "Mathematics", why does the terminal "s" deserve some special privilege?

To be a good player you need to know the probabilities involved, and have a good idea of the probable outcome of any match-up. Then you can aim for the best match-ups and try to avoid the bad ones.

It's a good start, sure. But it's a game, too. You also have to understand how the opponent thinks, and you have to be able to improvise when the dice rolls don't go your way.

Math skill is a good tool, but it won't win the day on its own.

You also have to understand how the opponent thinks

I disagree. That implies some knowledge of the opponent, but a good player could play a stranger at a tournament and still win, without knowing anything about the opponents playing style.

Math skill is a good tool, but it won't win the day on its own

Very true. Having a gun doesn't mean you'll win in a fight against an unarmed opponent doesn't mean you'll win but it does indeed help.
Honestly, it was MathHammer and learning of it that ruined WH etc for me. Games with WH & 40K really did devolve into a numbers game for me. Having taught math and having OCD with numbers let me win games but it darn near ruined the hobby for me. That's why when WWPD did their math articles for FoW, I specifically avoided even looking at them.

Lentulus asked:

it's maths not math!

Once one has chosen to abbreviate "Mathematics", why does the terminal "s" deserve some special privilege?

When shortening "statistics", do you say "stats" or "stat"?
When shortening "logistics", do you say "logs" or "log"?
I don't really want to know what you say when shortening "analytics".

All the best,

John.

When shortening "statistics", do you say "stats" or "stat"?

Stats. But of what possible use is one stat?

When shortening "logistics", do you say "logs" or "log"?
I don't really want to know what you say when shortening "analytics".

Don't use the words often enough to feel a need to abbreviate them.

Being good at math is just one variable. Knowing tactics, rules and being lucky are several other variables that come to mind. Weighing the many variables well and not being afraid to act will result in a lot of victories.

If a game is written well then maths skills on the part of the player is irrelevant. As long as they know the tactics of the period and follow them then they have as good a chance of winning as anyone else.

It's when players don't have an appreciation of the era and tactics that it might come in useful. Or when the game is poorly written and not particularly accurate.

I disagree. That implies some knowledge of the opponent, but a good player could play a stranger at a tournament and still win, without knowing anything about the opponents playing style.

Again, like math, it depends on the type of game.