Or am I doing something stupid that has no meaning?

Ok, it's small, but I like to think it has some impact in games.

Basically, it's Weighted Random, and I don't have enough armies to complete a bonus. For example, take an FTB on ME WR. 2 attacks of 4, and 1 attack of 3. Now, does it make any difference to the super-high-tech-fancy-luck-rounding-mechanisms of warlight, if I put this attack of 3 in the *middle* of my orders?

Here would be my orders

=Deployments=
Attack 4 to X
Attack 3 to Y
Attack 4 to Z

I arbitrarily make sure that the attack of 3 is always sandwiched between 2 attacks of 4... Does this make any difference or am I completely bat-shit crazy?

(And if I am crazy, if you do this too please let me know that I'm not the only crazy guy here)

Wait, what's your reasoning here?

I'd probably focus more on moving attacks on territories that my opponent might also border to the end (since the second 4v2 has a better chance of succeeding than the first 4v2- first 4v2 has to swallow the neutrals but typically doesn't raise the number of defending armies).

Edited 7/30/2016 06:39:41

Not sure if serious or not...

Either way, I would say it doesnt make a difference, since the the 3vs2 still has a percentage of 20% to fail... Infact I would actually do the 3vs2 at the end, incase you encounter enemies.

How the fuck would that possibly have any impact? That's like saying if I roll a sx sided dice in between coin flips, does it impact the likelihood of rolling a six?

^+1

I'd say keep 4s for regions you might face opposition and that's probably it.

Oddly enough for a Scottish nationalist, Ox doesn't understand independence.

^The feel when you know that half of people arround won't get that joke.

You should stick to math jokes, way more entertaining

Lmao it looks like I struck a nerve because Ox just changed his entire profile.

Edited 7/30/2016 14:18:52

only difference it might make is in providing less intel to your opponent that you have/haven't finished the bonus, if he is bordering you. on code it should not make any difference on the sequence of attacks influencing the random roll, unless there is some sort of random seeding bug, which i doubt.

only difference it might make is in providing less intel to your opponent that you have/haven't finished the bonus

How would that work?

(hehe i changed my profile before I made that this thread)

but I was half-hoping for at least 1 more crazy to come out of the closet and tell me that they did this. oh well, haha.

Also, a little more civil please >_>

Eh, that's just Omniscient being Omniscient. I'm sure he means no ill. :P

He just always calls out mistakes pretty harshly.

I think I saw it mentioned earlier, but to flush it out...

I would do the 3v2 earlier than later for two reasons:
1) If it fails, the opponent has a better chance of seeing the fail if you do it at the end of the turn.
Reason: Your opponent can only see what he shares borders with. So, in one case, he may take a territory that borders your attacking territory on first order. Then, if you have a failed attack from then he can see that your attack didn't succeed if he borders your first. A similar reasoning applies to the attacked territory, but he will see the 2 neutral become a 1, which is not good for you.

2) If your opponent attacks into your territory with a 3v2 to interrupt your FTB, a later 4v2 into them has a higher chance of getting the FTB, and kicking them out of the bonus for a turn.

EDIT:
But to answer what may be your question, each attack has the same odds at succeeding regardless of the order in the move order. Just the consequences of a failed attack are different based on what your opponent does and sees.

Edited 8/3/2016 17:17:32