Congratulations to Germany on a successful campaign, and I hope you don’t begrudge me for using you as an example. But since this is supposed to be a form of rationality training, would anyone (player or otherwise) care to speculate on what bias might have prevented Germany from maximizing its gains this turn?
I’m thinking of a specific named bias, and unless the Kaiser is doing something very clever I can’t understand, there was a move available to him that was better than the one he took (if he does have something very clever in mind, I certainly hope he’ll keep it to himself rather than reveal it now just because I’m bothering him about it).
I was thinking loss aversion. Mostly for the reasons Vaniver mentioned above: since the chance of Italy taking Munich is < 1⁄2, but the chance of Germany taking Holland = ~1 as long as England acts rationally, I thought Germany’s main reason for moving Kie—Mun was because it valued keeping the center it had more than gaining a new center.
I acknowledge position can be important, but if Italy did take Munich, Germany could have built in Berlin and Kiel and taken Munich back in spring guaranteed as long as Austria didn’t act really out of character. So while I guess I can’t say with complete confidence that loss aversion was the only reason for Germany to choose that move, unless Germany valued costing Italy a build more than I can see any reason for at this point, I feel like Holland would have been a better idea.
EDIT: Never mind, I’m convinced Germany had a reasonable explanation.
I acknowledge position can be important, but if Italy did take Munich, Germany could have built in Berlin and Kiel and taken Munich back in spring guaranteed as long as Austria didn’t act really out of character.
Italy builds in Venice, moves the new unit to Tyrolia the same spring that Munich is recaptured. The Italian unit retreats to Bohemia, and Italy now has two units bordering Munich. Preventing Italy from recapturing Munich in fall ties up two German units and bogs down the French campaign.
Austrian assistance could help avoid this, of course. But that assumes no secret alliances between Italy and Austria.
This assumes Italy wants Munich enough to commit two units long term to a plan that still doesn’t gain them the city (which would better be interpreted as having some reason to want to bog you down). If they wanted it that much, they could just move Tyr → Boh and Ven → Tyr next turn (this being in the counterfactual you assumed where they would have one build next year). So if Italy really wants to set up an annoying stalemate around Munich, they can do so whether or not you defend it this turn.
Also, Italy declared (both in public and in a private message) that he was going to invade Munich, so the chances of an invasion seemed higher than just 1⁄3.
if Italy did take Munich, Germany could have built in Berlin and Kiel and taken Munich back in spring guaranteed as long as Austria didn’t act really out of character.
True assuming German success against Marseilles. I rated that as no more than 2⁄3 assured. And loss of Munich to the Italians would have definitely have tempted the Russians to head over in that direction to say hello to our friend from Venice.
I suspect you’re either talking about Den-Swe or Kie-Hol, but I’m having trouble naming a bias with regards to either of them.
Kie-Hol isn’t just loss aversion because if Italy had gone to Munich, Italy would have grown- but if one assumed a 1/3rd chance of Italy going to Vienna, Munich, and Venice (which ignores the possibility of moving to Trieste), then moving to Hol would have been a 1/3rd gain (counting Italy’s gain as negative), whereas moving to Mun returns 0. So perhaps this is “shut up and multiply” or “visibility bias”- only looking at the possibility that Italy would move to Munich, and ignoring the other three spots that would be good to go to?
Not to pile on, but I believe that it is considered bad for Germany to get three builds the first year. It draws too much attention to a centrally located power that is easy to ally against.
Congratulations to Germany on a successful campaign, and I hope you don’t begrudge me for using you as an example. But since this is supposed to be a form of rationality training, would anyone (player or otherwise) care to speculate on what bias might have prevented Germany from maximizing its gains this turn?
I’m thinking of a specific named bias, and unless the Kaiser is doing something very clever I can’t understand, there was a move available to him that was better than the one he took (if he does have something very clever in mind, I certainly hope he’ll keep it to himself rather than reveal it now just because I’m bothering him about it).
EDIT: Disregard this, I’ve heard ample reasonable explanations for Germany’s actions.
I assume you’re thinking of loss aversion but I think you’re wrong. Position can count for more than supply centers.
I was thinking loss aversion. Mostly for the reasons Vaniver mentioned above: since the chance of Italy taking Munich is < 1⁄2, but the chance of Germany taking Holland = ~1 as long as England acts rationally, I thought Germany’s main reason for moving Kie—Mun was because it valued keeping the center it had more than gaining a new center.
I acknowledge position can be important, but if Italy did take Munich, Germany could have built in Berlin and Kiel and taken Munich back in spring guaranteed as long as Austria didn’t act really out of character. So while I guess I can’t say with complete confidence that loss aversion was the only reason for Germany to choose that move, unless Germany valued costing Italy a build more than I can see any reason for at this point, I feel like Holland would have been a better idea.
EDIT: Never mind, I’m convinced Germany had a reasonable explanation.
Italy builds in Venice, moves the new unit to Tyrolia the same spring that Munich is recaptured. The Italian unit retreats to Bohemia, and Italy now has two units bordering Munich. Preventing Italy from recapturing Munich in fall ties up two German units and bogs down the French campaign.
Austrian assistance could help avoid this, of course. But that assumes no secret alliances between Italy and Austria.
This assumes Italy wants Munich enough to commit two units long term to a plan that still doesn’t gain them the city (which would better be interpreted as having some reason to want to bog you down). If they wanted it that much, they could just move Tyr → Boh and Ven → Tyr next turn (this being in the counterfactual you assumed where they would have one build next year). So if Italy really wants to set up an annoying stalemate around Munich, they can do so whether or not you defend it this turn.
That’s true.
Also, Italy declared (both in public and in a private message) that he was going to invade Munich, so the chances of an invasion seemed higher than just 1⁄3.
True assuming German success against Marseilles. I rated that as no more than 2⁄3 assured. And loss of Munich to the Italians would have definitely have tempted the Russians to head over in that direction to say hello to our friend from Venice.
Meh. I love being the center of the attention, and was looking forward to an extended thread speculating on my actions. :)
I suspect you’re either talking about Den-Swe or Kie-Hol, but I’m having trouble naming a bias with regards to either of them.
Kie-Hol isn’t just loss aversion because if Italy had gone to Munich, Italy would have grown- but if one assumed a 1/3rd chance of Italy going to Vienna, Munich, and Venice (which ignores the possibility of moving to Trieste), then moving to Hol would have been a 1/3rd gain (counting Italy’s gain as negative), whereas moving to Mun returns 0. So perhaps this is “shut up and multiply” or “visibility bias”- only looking at the possibility that Italy would move to Munich, and ignoring the other three spots that would be good to go to?
Not to pile on, but I believe that it is considered bad for Germany to get three builds the first year. It draws too much attention to a centrally located power that is easy to ally against.