In response to the sabotage thing:

[La Fayette]

Attack of the proud mongolian city of Nishapur by hordes of german dips:
5 dips attack 25 times (since there are 4 improvements + settlers under production in the city). Results:

Settlers (ub): 14, 4, 4, 3, 0, =25
Barracks_____: 10,14, 1, 0, 0, =25
Temple_______: 0, 6,15, 3, 1, =25
Market Place : 0, 1, 5,17, 2, =25
City Walls___: 1, 0, 1, 2,21, =25

(14 means that dip #1 destroys the settlers)

The pattern is the same as when using spies: almost a diagonal matrix, meaning that dips choose their target almost in accordance with the list (with a slight random factor).
The difference is the level of losses (all dips lost in the attack, instead of 50% of non vet spies and about 28% of vet spies).
I don't feel like testing vet dips now (I bet the pattern of results is the same and the level of losses somewhere between dips and non vet spies).

But I have tested an attack with spies choosing their primary target. Results hereunder.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[SlowThinker]

East Side Trader,
Yes, there is. But, pistes are short (500 m of difference of altitude is the max), snow may be from december to april (from 700 m up), it is much cheaper than Alpes, but sometimes snow conditions are bad: I go to Italy now.

Where is Murren?
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited January 15, 2001).]

[SlowThinker]

La Fayette,
I am inclinable to believe that Vet dips work the same manner as non-Vet dips in all situations.

[La Fayette]

Attack of the ancient and glorious city of Memphis by hordes of babylonian spies ("choose their primary target").

1) 25 attacks by 6 non vet spies attempting to destroy city walls (I chose 6 because it was the number of spies used during the previous attack of Memphis,"use their judgment", see results above)
0 spy lost: 3 times
1 spy lost: 9 times
2 spies lost:6 times
3 spies lost:3 times
4 spies lost:1 time
5 spies lost:1 time
6 spies lost:2 times (which means that, unlike Jericho, the walls of Memphis did not come tumbling down).
Global losses are reduced, compared with the "use their judgment" attack: 51 spies lost instead of 75, but the attack fails twice out of 25 attempts.

2) 25 attacks by 6 vet spies attempting to destroy city walls:

0 spy lost : 5 times
1 spy lost : 16 times
2 spies lost: 3 times
3 spies lost: 1 time

Beloved vet spies! The walls tumble down and losses are quite light (25 spies lost in 25 attacks, which means exactly 1 loss/attack on the average).

I plan to be back with some results about poisoning and stealing techs within a few days (fed up with destroying improvements for the time being).

BTW there were neither dips nor spies inside Memphis and Nishapur.



------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

ST
Murren is Switzlerland (shame on me if not).
No city walls there. But there is a wall ("wand" in german), with world reputation not far from there: the so called "Eigerwand", quite impressive to look at and very very difficult to climb.
I stopped at the Lauberhorn which is much easier to climb, but skiing down to Wengen was great fun.
(auld times, and slightly off-topic I'm afraid; excuse me).

[East Street Trader]

So a secret service support for an attacking army of just two vet spies (plus one more for each subsequent target city) gives good odds for bringing down the walls by selecting them as a target.

Interesting. Very.

For non vets the trade off between letting the spy choose her target and specifying the walls seems to go something like

- non-selection guarantees some damage is done even if the walls never come down and the city is not taken; also calculating the number of spies needed to make the attack statistically close to a sure thing is easier.

- selecting the walls is a higher risk/higher reward approach; many spies may be lost for nothing at all; but the walls may come down at the first or second attempt with no or very few spies lost with some improvements retained in the city once it has been taken.

I, for one, have been getting this one wrong. My practice has been always to let the spy choose her target. I can now see that, particularly with vets, there are going to be tactical situations which favour specifying the walls. Attacking any city with a lot of improvements being an obvious one.

I have a feeling (empiric evidence only) that my attempts (outside communism) to make my spies into vets involve casualty rates at about 50%. So to get two vet spies I have had to build four. That still looks cheap compared to non vet results tho'.

Looking forward to results on poisoning etc. In case they throw up routes to vet status which are less costly.

Yes, Murren is in Switzerland. It is where recreational skiing started. It has enduring links with the UK but I also met quite a few Scandinavians and Dutch there. Not many French or German people.

If you like cutting yourself off from the world amongst a smallish group of other folk with whom you share an interest it is a really nice place.

Incredible views - I spent some minutes looking at the face of the Eiger mystified that folk climb it. Nowadays, apparently, free climbing - no ropes!

Like the sound of cheaper skiing in the Czech Republic. With tourism to central Europe picking up perhaps there is a cheap flight to be found. I might just look into it.

Meanwhile, I'm already dreaming of a week in Val d'Isere (my favourite resort) in March.

[La Fayette]

EST
Please, don't post too much about Val d'Isère
(I was lucky enough to be named responsible for a number of economic studies about the growth of such places in the late sixties; wrote 4 books about Val d'Isère, one about Wengen and Grindelwald, none about Murren though...and don't go skiing any more now)

About dips and spies:
1) With 3 vet spies, you are quite sure that the walls tumble down (all walls but one went down during my test with zero or one spy lost, but this game is tricky and I would suspect that there may be a 1% probability of needing spy #3 to be really on the safe side).
2) With dips or non vet spies, the test shows that you are sure that the walls go down if you attack with n+1 and let them choose their target (n being the number of improvements in the city), but losses are high (100% with dips and 50% with spies), and, most of the time, you need to destroy all other improvements before getting rid of the walls.
3) Choose communism and build vet spies. This is the only way to get them cheap (and communism also has many other interesting features, ... in civ2, I mean ).

[SlowThinker]

La Fayette,
what means "x spies lost" in your post from January 15, 2001 09:17? Does it include spies captured before AND after the sabotage of city walls? (I would like to join our results)
Did you test the capital? (I mean the message "Attempting sabotage in enemy capital or against city walls is very risky". It may be cumulative).

I did a quick test for sabotaging/use her judgement with
Barracks, Granary, Temple, MarketPlace, Bank, Cathedral, Recycl., SuperHighways, PoliceSt., with no recording. I felt Recycl., SuperH and Police were usually destroyed first, then choice skipped to the beginning of the list...

I tried to head computer to specific improvement: I sent first unit with "primary target" option, then I watched if it will affect subsequent choices with "use her judgement". It doesn't.

[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited January 21, 2001).]

[SlowThinker]

I tested industrial sabotage with spies and "primary target".

Description of tests:
50 attempts for each test:
Test 1: Vet spy - city walls, not the capital
Test 2: Vet spy - city walls, the capital
Test 3: Non-Vet spy - city walls, not the capital
Test 4: Vet spy - not city walls (ordinary improvements), not the capital
Test 5: Vet spy - not city walls (ordinary improvements), the capital
Test 6: Non-Vet spy - not city walls (ordinary improvements), not the capital
Test 7: Non-Vet spy - not city walls (ordinary improvements), the capital

I took notice of the survival after the attempt too: I imagined a spy attempt may be divided into two parts:
1. The enemy tries to capture a spy before completing her mission (the sabotage fails if he is succesful)
2. The enemy tries to capture a spy after completing her mission

I mark a succesful capture as 0, and an escape as 1: The result of a mission may be recorded as 0, 10 or 11:
0: The capture before the mission
10: Unsuccesfull capture before completing a mission (i.e. succesful sabotage) and succesfull capture after the mission
11: Unsuccesfull capture before completing a mission (and succesful sabotage) and an escape after the mission.

Results
Test 1: Vet spy - city walls, not the capital
0,0,11,10,11,11,11,11,0,0,10,0,11,0,11,10,0,11,0,1 1,11,0,0,11,11,0,0,10,0,11,10,0,0,0,10,10,0,11,10, 0,10,10,11,0,0,10,0,11,10,0
22/50 (44%) captured before
16/28 (57%) escaped after

Test 2: Vet spy - city walls AND the capital
0,0,10,0,0,0,0,0,10,11,10,10,10,10,0,10,10,10,10,1 1,0,10,0,10,10,11,10,10,0,0,0,0,10,11,11,0,0,11,0, 0,11,11,10,10,0,10,11,0,10,0
21/50 (42%) captured before
9/29 (31%) escaped after

Test 3: Non-Vet spy - city walls, not the capital
11,0,10,10,0,0,0,0,10,0,0,11,10,10,10,0,10,10,10,0 ,0,0,11,10,11,10,0,0,10,10,10,10,0,10,11,0,0,0,10, 10,10,0,0,0,0,10,0,0,10,10
23/50 (46%) captured before
5/27 (18.5%) escaped after

Test 4: Vet spy - not city walls (ordinary improvements), not the capital
11,10,10,10,10,10,11,11,10,10,0,10,0,11,11,10,10,1 0,11,0,0,10,10,10,11,10,11,11,10,11,10,10,11,11,10 ,10,11,11,11,11,10,11,10,10,0,11,11,0,10,10
6/50 (12%) captured before
19/44 (43%) escaped after

Test 5: Vet spy - not city walls (ordinary improvements), the capital
10,10,0,0,11,11,0,10,10,10,10,11,0,11,11,0,10,0,11 ,11,11,11,0,10,11,11,0,0,11,11,0,0,0,0,11,11,11,0, 11,11,0,10,10,10,0,0,11,11,11,11
17/50 (34%) captured before
22/33 (66%) escaped after

Test 6: Non-Vet spy - not city walls (ordinary improvements), not the capital
10,10,10,10,10,11,10,0,10,0,10,11,10,0,10,11,0,0,1 0,11,10,0,10,0,10,11,10,10,10,10,10,11,0,0,10,11,0 ,10,0,0,0,10,0,10,11,10,10,11,0,10,
15/50 (30%) captured before
9/35 (25.7%) escaped after

Test 7: Non-Vet spy - not city walls (ordinary improvements), the capital
0,10,0,10,0,10,10,0,10,10,10,0,10,10,0,10,10,0,11, 0,0,0,0,0,0,10,10,0,0,10,10,0,0,11,10,11,0,0,0,0,0 ,0,10,0,0,0,11,11,0,0
28/50 (56%) captured before
5/22 (22.7%) escaped after

Summary:
Generally, I am confused. I am unable to find any simplifying rules.

____________________________________
There is a question: Is any attempt independent on a number of previous unsuccesful attempts for the same city? Using other words: Has La Fayette's concentration to the number of spies lost any sense?
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited January 21, 2001).]

[La Fayette]

ST
It is clear that you and I are going to destroy some more improvements before having a complete answer to all questions.
My attacks up to now were limited to the cities of Memphis and Nishapur. Neither of these was a capital and there were no dips or spies inside the cities.
I suppose that dips or spies defending have no effect on sabotaging (though they have an effect on stealing techs, as stated in the book).
But I am quite sure that there is a "capital" effect (namely sabotaging is more risky in a capital). This appears in your tests and I experienced it last night, loosing EIGHT vet spies before being able to destroy the city walls of Delhi, proud capital city of the Indians.

Then, what is clear now from our tests?

1)"Use her judgment"

I think that the situation is quite clear when there is no specified target (which means attacking with dips or attacking with spies and choosing "use her judgment").
In that case, the improvements inside the city are destroyed almost in accordance with the list (my tests), with some sort of priority for some modern improvements (your tests).
City Walls are usually close to the bottom of the list.
Losses are 100% with dips, around 50% with non vet spies and around 29% with vet spies (almost certainly higher losses in a capital, but this remains to be tested).
In fact, it seems to me that the solution I gave before we started testing is still valid after test:

IF THERE ARE N IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY, ATTACK WITH N+1 DIPS OR SPIES ("using their judgment") and you are sure that the walls will tumble down.

2)"give primary target"
You are right, when 1 spy is lost she may be lost either before or after destroying the walls (O or 10, in your log).
I concentrated on "how many spies are captured during the attack", then the 2 situations "0,11" and "10" in your log both are one situation "1 spy lost" in my log.

I have converted your log into mine, in order to check whether your results are close to mine. Here it is (column 1=your test, column 2=my test):

Test 1: Vet spies; city walls; not the capital
O lost = 7,5
1 lost = 14,16
2 lost = 3,3
3 lost = 3,1
4 lost = 1,0
Total = 28,25

My conclusion: results quite in accordance (33 spies lost in 28 attempts in your test, 25 lost in 25 attempts in my test).

Test 3: Non vet spies; city walls; not the capital
0 lost = 3,3
1 lost = 15,9
2 lost = 4,6
3 lost = 3,3
4 lost = 1,1
5 lost = 2,1
6 lost = 0,2

Results also quite in accordance (46 spies lost in 25 attempts in your test, 51 lost in 25 attempts in my test).

3) What remains to be tested:
- vet dips (I don't wish to; I love vet spies, not vet dips)
- capital (I'll do some testing this week)
- improvements other than city walls (I'm satisfied with your test)

4) Am I confused?
Not at all. I think we are close to the end, since your tests provide results very close to mine.

(This is not the case when bribing cities without capital; I tell you about that later)


------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

ST
I forgot telling you that IMHO my concentration to the number of spies lost makes sense ( in fact I think that having a knowledge about losses is very important for any player, sinceone derives the probability of seeing the walls tumble down directly from that knowledge).

[SlowThinker]

La Fayette,

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-22-2001 11:41 AM</font> I suppose that dips or spies defending have no effect on sabotaging (though they have an effect on stealing techs, as stated in the book).

I agree.

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-22-2001 11:41 AM</font> But I am quite sure that there is a "capital" effect (namely sabotaging is more risky in a capital). This appears in your tests and I experienced it last night, loosing EIGHT vet spies before being able to destroy the city walls of Delhi, proud capital city of the Indians.

I refer to my Post1 in my "Info" thread:

12.17 If you choose "give primary target" against the capital or walled city, then a message "Attempting sabotage in enemy capital or against city walls is very risky" appears.

Now, I noticed that this message doesn't appear in 2.42, it appear in Multiplayer only. But your experience tell us it that it is valid for 2.42 too, probably.

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-22-2001 11:41 AM</font> Losses are 100% with dips, around 50% with non vet spies and around 29% with vet spies (almost certainly higher losses in a capital, but this remains to be tested).

I believe there are no higher loses for a capital, a message doesn't appear for "use her judgement" or a dip.

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-22-2001 11:41 AM</font> IF THERE ARE N IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY, ATTACK WITH N+1 DIPS OR SPIES ("using their judgment") and you are sure that the walls will tumble down

I think this statement is equal to "Dip/spy("using her judgment") is always succesfull (i.e. he/she cannot be captured before a mission) AND production may be sabotaged only once per a turn".

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-22-2001 11:41 AM</font> I concentrated on "how many spies are captured during the attack", then the 2 situations "0,11" and "10" in your log both are one situation "1 spy lost" in my log.

I suppose "0" and "10" (??)

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-22-2001 11:41 AM</font> 3) What remains to be tested: - vet dips (I don't wish to; I love vet spies, not vet dips)

What do you expect? A chance to survive? Even for bribing formula, they have the same effect as non vets.
I have an hypothesis that the vet status of a dip has never any significance.

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-22-2001 11:41 AM</font> 4) Am I confused? Not at all. I think we are close to the end, since your tests provide results very close to mine.

Why am I confused? I would suppose some simple rule (as in bribing formula: all conditions (vet status, courthouse, existence of the capital) affects the bribing cost independently ): for example the capital should affect all situations the same way (by a common modifier).


[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited January 22, 2001).]

[SlowThinker]

quote: Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-22-2001 11:56 AM ST I forgot telling you that IMHO my concentration to the number of spies lost makes sense ( in fact I think that having a knowledge about losses is very important for any player, sinceone derives the probability of seeing the walls tumble down directly from that knowledge).

I agree. My two questions didn't express the same thing. But, the first question remains:
Is any attempt independent on a number of previous unsuccesful attempts for the same city? (Takes Civ2 program previous attempts into consideration?)

I will concentrate to the question of being captured before the sabotage:
Test 1: We could suppose that 44% spies captured before is 50% in point of fact.

city walls falls for the 1st attempt (captured before 0 times) =14
2nd (captured before 1 times)=8
3rd=5
4rd=1

If the answer to my question is yes, then for a statistically large amount of test
14(1st row)/2 (50%)=(approx.)8 (2nd row)
8/2=5
5/2=1

I am willing to believe that yes is right.

[SlowThinker]

quote: Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-24-2001 12:24 PM 6)I suppose you meant "sabotaging cost".

No, I meant "bribing cost". I wanted to express that things are simple for bribing.

[La Fayette]

ST
I reply without quotes to make it simpler (I hope):
1)dips or spies defending = no effect on sabotaging; OK.
2)sabotaging more risky in a capital city = YES
(I send conclusive results to-morrow)
3)my statement "if n improvements in the city, attack with n+1 dips or spies" equivalent to yours: I agree.
4)situation "0,11" means "walls tumble down, 1 spy lost"
Situation "10" also means "walls tumble down, 1 spy lost"
(in your log 1 spy attacking is 1 attempt; in my log 1 attempt is 1 city wall down)
5)vet dips: agree with you: same effect as non vet (unless someone demonstrates the contrary)
6)I suppose you meant "sabotaging cost".
I have found the pattern. I post the results to-morrow.

[La Fayette]

Here we are!
To make it clear I send 3 posts:
1) Latest results (attacking the ancient and glorious city of Thebes, capital of the Egyptians, with hordes of babylonian spies).
2) How it works (my conclusion about what is inside the box: namely how the programmers of civ2 decided that sabotaging would be).
3) Advice to players (what should one do when one wishes to attack a city with dips or spies).

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

Post #1: Latest results
a) Attack of Thebes (capital) by 7 babylonian non vet spies ("choose primary target": city walls)

Lost O = 1
Lost 1 = 7
Lost 2 = 3
Lost 4 = 5
Lost 5 = 0
Lost 6 = 1
Lost 7 = 5
Total = 25
This means 83 spies lost in 20 successful attacks + 5 unsuccessful attacks (due to the fact that I had only 7 spies ready to attack, since I always make tests from savegames and have never opened "cheat mode " up to now).

b) Same with 6 vet spies (capital, walls)

Lost 0 = 8
Lost 1 = 11
Lost 2 = 4
Lost 3 = 1
Lost 4 = 0
Lost 5 = 0
Lost 6 = 1
Total = 25

This means 28 vet spies lost in 24 successful attacks (+1 unsuccessful)).

[La Fayette]

Post #2: How it works

a)"choose primary target"
"Pile ou face", that is the name of the game in french (I think it is called "heads and tails" in english: you throw a coin and look at what happens, either or).
Look at the example above, if needed: my vet spy stands in front of the walls of Thèbes, then
"pile": the walls tumble down
"face": she's captured by wary Egyptians.

In more scientific terms, there is a probability of 0,5 that the walls of a capital tumble down when attacked by a vet spy. Any new attack is independant from the previous one (just like in the game of "pile ou face" any new coin is independant from the one before, which explains why it might happen to you that, once in a while,a large number of vet spies are captured before the walls tumble down, just like when one goes on playing "red" at the roulette).
Then the Egyptians get a second chance. They may capture the vet spy after the walls have been destroyed. This means a second game of heads and tails (with a probability close to 0,3 that the vet spy gets captured, or 0,7 that she escapes unharmed).

b) What happens if the spy is non vet, or the city is non capital or the improvement is non walls (temple or library,...)?

The program is the same:
test #1: do the walls go down? (yes or no, probability of yes=p1)
test #2 (conditional): if the walls are down, does the spy escape (yes or no, probability of yes=p2).
But the probabilities are different (most risky:capital, walls, non vet spy; least risky: non capital, non walls, vet spy).
From the tests made by SlowThinker and by myself, I derive that the probabilities are probably close to these:
1) Capital, walls, vet spy: p1=0,5 (p2=0,5)
2) Capital, walls, non vet: p1=0,25 (p2=0,25)
3) Capital, non walls, vet spy: p1=0,66 (p2=0,5)
4) Capital, non walls, non vet: p1=0,5 (p2=0,25)
5) Non capital, walls, vet spies: p1=0,6 (p2=0,5)
6) Non capital, walls, non vet: p1=0,4 (p2=0,25)
7) Non capital, non walls, vet spy: p1=0,85 (p2=0,5)
8) Non capital, non walls, non vet: p1=0,7 (p2=0,25)

c) "use her judgment" (or dip, since dips have no other choice)
The method for choosing is the same for dips and spies:
They choose their target almost in accordance with the list of improvements in the city window (ST has also tested some sort of priority for some modern improvements).
But there is a random factor which makes that, even if city walls are down the list, it may happen now and then that they are chosen as #1 or #2.
It seems to me that the improvement chosen is always destroyed and the commodity under building is chosen only if there is at least 1 shield in the box (which means only one such attack per turn).
The difference between dips and spies lies in the field of losses:
100% losses with dips (neither ST nor I are wishing to test vet dips now).
About 50% losses with non vet spies and 30% with vet spies (probably higher losses in capital cities; I test that to-night if I feel like it).

[La Fayette]

Post #3: Advice to players
This advice is about sabotaging (destroying improvements, especially city walls), not about bribing, stealing techs or poisoning water.

Spies (vet or non vet) have a choice between 2 methods: "use her judgment" or "choose primary target". Dips always use their judgment.

a) "use her judment"
If you want to make sure that you destroy the walls of the city you are greedily looking at, you should :
- send 1 dip and have a look at the number of improvements inside the city, let us say n;
- then come back next turn with n+1 dips and destroy everything until the walls tumble down (if you are very lucky, dip #1 might destroy the walls, but most commonly you will have to wait until dip #n or dip #n+1).
The method is the same with spies, but losses are lighter (100% with dips, 50% with non vet spies, about 28% with vet spies).

b)"choose primary target"
The 2 main advantages of this method are lighter losses (especially with vet spies) and non destruction of improvements inside the city (which allows you to sell them or use them when the city becomes yours).

NON VET
If the city has few improvements and you are using non vet spies, then the "choose primary target" is not really a good choice, because there is a risk of having many spies captured before the walls tumble down.
If you are in a hurry and don't care too much about the value of the improvements, then let your spy "use her judgment" (with n+1 spies ready, of course).

VET
It is highly advisable to use method #2 ("choose...") with vet spies, with lower losses and better chances of success.

[La Fayette]

La cerise sur le gâteau.
This is a gift to those of you who are fond of matrices.
Matrix #1 gives the average number of vet spies lost/walls destroyed, along with the tests made by ST and me.
Matrix #2 gives the same for non vet (column 1 relates to walls, column 2 relates to other improvements).

1) VET

Capital city: 1,38; 0,85
Non capital : 1,09; 0,70

2) NON VET

Capital city: 3,33; 1,95
Non capital : 1,92; 1,17

My conclusion would be (as usual): long live our beloved vet spies.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

Dear friends
I know that some of you happen to write "sheilds".
I know that some of you happen to write "diety".
That is your choice.
I didn't choose to write "independAnt" (just as if I were writing french).
I blush and beg your pardon.

[SlowThinker]

I agree with "heads and tails".

I think we would have proceed 5 times more tests to have appropriate results. About p2, for example: you set the probability to 0.25 and 0.5 too prematurely. My results were 0.57, 0.31, 0.18, 0.43, 0.66 0.25, 0.23

About p1: I don't believe programmers set all 8 numbers separately. I think more probable is the possibility that they set basic probability and three modifiers for walls, capital and vet status. (Maybe they set that capital and walls won't be cumulative)

Look at this.
1) Capital, walls, vet spy: p1=0,5
5) Non capital, walls, vet spies: p1=0,6

4) Capital, non walls, non vet: p1=0,5
8) Non capital, non walls, non vet: p1=0,7

Non Capital induces increase to 0.6 for the first case and to to 0.7 for the second case.


[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited January 27, 2001).]

[SlowThinker]

I dislike that testing of probabilities. It is too annoying. I think authors of Civ should release all informations about probabilities.

[SlowThinker]

quote: Originally posted by La Fayette on 01-30-2001 12:12 PMWe know exactly how it works

I would disagree with "exactly"
But I would let the remaining work for other people

quote: Thank you for constructive dialog.

I liked it.

[La Fayette]

ST
I agree with you: it would be advisable to test much bigger samples to make sure of the exact values of those probabilities (and get bored to death doing that ).

We know exactly how it works and what to do when attacking any city with dips or spies (and I am quite satisfied with the summary of losses that I published above).
Hence I put the main results on your thread and consider that we have solved the problem of sabotaging (all important results have been given and remaining details have no practical importance).
Thank you for constructive dialog.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental