Forum for "stupid" questions

[Dave G.]

If you're like me and you don't spend all your time playing SC2, then you're probably going to have some "stupid" questions that you need the answers for, but you're too embarassed to ask anyone. Well, hopefully, this discussion thread will be for you.

Here's my "stupid" question. How do I keep the Axis from declaring war on the United States? It's hard enough to beat Russia and then all of a sudden without my even being asked about it, the message pops up that I've declared war on the U.S. Needless to say, my plans are now totally messed up and it's only a matter of time before I get smeared.

[JerseyJohn]

Not a stupid question at all.

-- I suspect you'll be directed to scenario editor.

But if what you're saying is there should be a way to simply not have that as an option, as there was in the first SC, I agree with you.

And there may be. So, I guess I'm asking the same stupid question you are.

[Hubert Cater]

Dave G., as JJ mentioned not stupid at all. Once you've loaded the campaign you've selected to play and are in the OPTIONS MENU click on the ADVANCED button. From there click on the SCRIPTS button and you should get a window with all the in game scripts listed.

Click on War Entry and you should then see the listed WAR ENTRY script events including the Germany Declares War on the USA event. You can disable this event as well as any other event you like by left clicking on the check box at the far right of the highlighted event.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[SeaMonkey]

There are certain things you are compelled to do in an historical context. DoW of USA or the joining of the USA to the Allied alliance is one of those.

If you would like to have more freedom of decision, then that is why HC created the editor.

Direct yourself to the custom campaigns and you will attain your goal, or better yet conjure up your own.

Oh...by the way... the only stupid question..is the one that's never asked.

[Blashy]

The editor is the main options buttons for this game.

They are SO many options than they simply can't be all in an options menu.

If one person asks that you can simply tick off USA has active or neutral, another is going to ask that you can select their join %, another after will ask that you can modify their industry modifier, it would simply never end.

The editor has all those tools and anyone who makes the comment "I'm crap at editing" has obviously NEVER EVER once opened the editor to have a look. I had NO editor experience outside of SC and I could understand 90+% of the SC2 editor within 15 minutes.

Why? Because the SC2 editor is 90% options features and the other 10% asks for dedication and time.

NOTE: Hubert did put in A LOT of advanced options button in game.

[ November 28, 2006, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[JerseyJohn]

Mr C,

Thanks for that explanation. I didn't know those advanced options myself, and am glad you explained them.

[Korut Zelva]

If the Axis conquers the british isle and the allies liberate it. What happens if the axis conquers alexandria? Does the UK surrender or the capital goes back to london?

[The K Man]

Is this German declaration on war part of the new upgrade 1.05a? I don't ever remember Germany declaring war on the US in the other versions.

And as long as were asking odd ball questions here, here is another for all you statistians. (Man I need spell check - hope I spelled that right.) Its been awile since I had elementary statistics, so here goes...

On research and development. Assuming all is equal and starting level is zero. Lets say u got 300 to spend. Would it be better to buy 3 chits @ 100 each, which would give you a 15% chance of getting a hit, or would it be better to put one chit in 3 different advances. You would have a 5% chance in each, but now you have 3 possibilities as opposed to one. I think about that sometimes while playing.

[Moonslayer]

To be honest I don't think it makes any difference. I base my research on what I think is most necessary at the time.

Usually I try to get intelligence research up to max asap so that advances will come that much more quickly later in the game.

Often I like to spread out the research chits simply to add a little variety to the development

[hellraiser]

"Usually I try to get intelligence research up to max asap so that advances will come that much more quickly later in the game."

This is an illusion

Intel tech only helps you increase your chances in a particular field in which, the enemy is AHEAD of you.

[Bromley]

K Man. Option 2, assuming all techs are equally useful. Option 1 (3 chits in 1 tech) does give you a 15% chance initially, but after you've got one hit and increased to tech 1 that drops to 8% (2*4%). Option 2 drops to 10% after one hit (2*5%).

P.20 of the manual has some nice examples for you.

(Oh, and I think I'm right in saying statistically there is no difference between 15% and 3*5%. Both have a 15% chance of something happening. I suppose there is an argument that with the 3*5% there is a chance (0.25%?) that you'll get two hits in the same turn and a chance (0.0125%?) that you'll get all three, but those are pretty small. Obviously though they're larger than the chance of getting 2 hits in the same tech in one go (0% )).

[ November 29, 2006, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

[Ottosmops]

Several independent trials, each with the same probability, give a binomial distribution.

If you have one chit with a 5% chance in each of three categories, the chances are:

85.7375% for no hit in the next turn

13.5375% for exactly one hit

0.7125% for two hits

0.0125% for three hits

[TaoJah]

If you want ONE tech advancement, it's best to put all three chits in one tech. Then you got a 15% chance that you'll get the tech.

If you put the chits in three different techs, you only got a 14,2625 to get a tech. Of course, on the positive side, in that 14,2625 % , there is a 0.7125% chance that you'll get TWO techs and a 0.0125 chance that you got three techs.

Originally posted by Ottosmops:

Several independent trials, each with the same probability, give a binomial distribution.

If you have one chit with a 5% chance in each of three categories, the chances are:

85.7375% for no hit in the next turn

13.5375% for exactly one hit

0.7125% for two hits

0.0125% for three hits

My math is a bit rusty... Let's see if I can reconstruct this...

If you have a 1/20 chance of success (5% to have an advancement) in each of three different experiments (chits in three different techs), then you have 20*20*20 outcomes (8000).

Y Y Y

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

N N N

- 1 of them (YYY) gives three advancements (1/8000 = 0.0125%)

- 57 (19 YYN + 19 YNY + 19 NNY) of them give 2 advancements (57 / 8000 = 0.7125%)

- 1083 (19*19 YNN + 19*19 YNY + 19*19 NNY ) give 1 advancement (1083 / 8000 = 13.5375%)

- the rest (19N *19 N *19 N) give no advancements (6859 / 8000 = 0.857375%)

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Bromley:

Oh, and I think I'm right in saying statistically there is no difference between 15% and 3*5%. Both have a 15% chance of something happening.

This is not true.

You do not get 5% + 5% + 5% if you take chits in three different techs, you get less.

In fact you get 1 - ((1-0.05) * (1-0.05) * (1-0.05)) chance, being 1 - (0.95*0.95*0.95) = 1 - 0.857375 = 14.2625 %.

You can not just add up the three chances of 5%.

If that weems weird to you, look at it this way : you got a 50% chance to throw tails if you flip a coin, right ? Soooo... If you flip it twice, do you have a 100% chance to get a tail ?

No, you only got a 75%, because in one out of four throws, you'll throw two heads...

This is 1 - ((1-0.5) * (1-0.5)) = 1 - (0.5*0.5) = 1 - 0.25 = 0.75.

The way to calculate this is not to add the chances of succes up, but to multiply the chances of failure (and subtract it from 1). 95% in tech advancement, 50% in coin flipping.

Please don't ask me to explain it differently, because then I'll have to think about socks in drawers and I HATED those !

[Moonslayer]

To summarise all of the above:

There is practically no difference so go for whatever you like ;p

[Bromley]

Arrgh! Rusty with the maths. However, if you weight those possibilities, then the (can't remember the correct term - expected value?) becomes 15%:

0.135375*1 = 0.135375

0.007125*2 = 0.01425

0.000125*3 = 0.000375

--------

0.15

====

[James the Conqueror]

I hope this is a stupid question - that will mean there is an easy answer I didn't see ...

Intelligence does not seem to be well described in the game manual. The section on research states that the bonus can be modified by friendly research advances, but the formula just below the discussion only accounts for the highest ENEMY level. Can I assume this also refers to the highest level achieved by allies? The value of "intelligence modifier" in the formula is not clear. The section on Intelligence says each level decreases your opponent's bonus by 1%. Assuming that the answer to my first question is yes, does this mean that in the formula, when applied to an ally's research, the ally's bonus is NOT reduced? And that, therefore, it is easier to acquire research from allies than it is from enemies? (which would make sense - but I've learned not to rely on what I think makes sense when trying to figure out what somebody else has done. Or to count on it working the way they say it does, for that matter.) Is there something I can look at to help me figure this out?

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by James the Conqueror:

I hope this is a stupid question - that will mean there is an easy answer I didn't see ...

Intelligence does not seem to be well described in the game manual. The section on research states that the bonus can be modified by friendly research advances, but the formula just below the discussion only accounts for the highest ENEMY level. Can I assume this also refers to the highest level achieved by allies? The value of "intelligence modifier" in the formula is not clear. The section on Intelligence says each level decreases your opponent's bonus by 1%. Assuming that the answer to my first question is yes, does this mean that in the formula, when applied to an ally's research, the ally's bonus is NOT reduced? And that, therefore, it is easier to acquire research from allies than it is from enemies? (which would make sense - but I've learned not to rely on what I think makes sense when trying to figure out what somebody else has done. Or to count on it working the way they say it does, for that matter.) Is there something I can look at to help me figure this out?

When calculating the chance of getting a research advance, he takes into account these things :

- The normal percentage of succes (5% for level 1, 4% for level 2,...)

- Then he checks if your enemie has a higher level in this research field then you. When he does, you get a 1% bonus percentage of success for each level he has higher then you.

- That bonus percentage is lowered with 1 % for every level that your enemies INT is higher then yours.

So if you're researching level 1 and your enemy already has level 3, you get 5% + 3% chance = 8%.

When your enemy has INT level 1 and you have none, you only have 5% + 3% - 1 % = 7 %.

When your enemie has INT level 1 and you have INT level 2, you got 5% + 3% + 1% = 9%.

But INt has no effect on your research if your enemy has no advantage in a research field. So if he has Infantry 1 and you are researching Infantry 2, your INT does NOT give you a higher % of success.

The easiest way to remember this is to call INT "spionage" : you can only learn somthing from an enemy if he knows more then you AND if your spionage netwerk is better then his.

[Edwin P.]

I like that name better - espionage. It more accurately reflects that intelligence only gives you a bonus if the enemy tech level is ahead of yours.

[James the Conqueror]

Thanks for your answer, but it really doesn't respond to my question: Does any of this apply to FRIENDLY research advances, as is stated in the manual? If so, are friends' intelligence bonuses vis a vis your advances NOT reduced in the same way your enemy's are, as is also stated in the manual?

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by James the Conqueror:

Thanks for your answer, but it really doesn't respond to my question: Does any of this apply to FRIENDLY research advances, as is stated in the manual? If so, are friends' intelligence bonuses vis a vis your advances NOT reduced in the same way your enemy's are, as is also stated in the manual?

With Friends you mean Italy and German ?

No, they don't have an effect on each other.

I suppose the term "friendly" from the manual means "yours".

[James the Conqueror]

Manual p.20, in discussion of R & D, "This bonus could be further modified by friendly and/or enemy Intelligence research advances."

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

But INt has no effect on your research if your enemy has no advantage in a research field. So if he has Infantry 1 and you are researching Infantry 2, your INT does NOT give you a higher % of success.

But even if you are the tech leader a higher Intel

rating will still counteract his chances of catching

up (if your Intel > his Intel), right?

[borsook]

Since various question are asked here - why tanks have higher hard defence than soft one?

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

But even if you are the tech leader a higher Intel rating will still counteract his chances of catching up (if your Intel > his Intel), right?

Yes, if you are the tech-leader, your intel will negate his intel. But it never lowers the base chance I think.

So if the base chance if 5% and you're two advanced ahead of him, his chance becomes 7% (2 bonus because of your tech lead) UNLESS you got more intel then him.

If you got 1 INTEL more then him, he'll have 6% chance.

If you got 2 INTEL more then him, he'll have 5% chance.

If you got 3 INTEL more then him, he'll still have 5% chance, because it only lowers the bonus, not the base percentages.