Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well I've had several requests to explain how I apply game theory to 40k.

Sooo...this would require a paper, and it's very late.

I'll add a few concepts, and see if the thread degenerates. If it doesn't, I'll add more to it.

I'm only referring to Grand Tournaments now.

First let's start with what game theory is and specifically which version I'm using--this is for those that know what game theory is, and for those that don't: I'm using noncooperative game theory, which is generally defined as 'how do intelligent individuals deal with one other in their efforts to achieve their own set of goals'. So I delve into economics (army points being the resources although you can view the player pool as such as well) and philosophy (social interactions).


You might want to read up on the Prisoner's Dilemna, since we're talking about Grand Tournaments and the Dilemna is an excellent example of first/only interaction when judging soft scores. I personally remove myself from the issue by always giving maximum scores, in essence doing the exact opposite of what an intelligent agent would do. In short, I would get 0 points in the Dilemna. It's been a long term experiment of mine, I suppose. Anyway...here goes:

Example:

Alot of players believe Marines are "self-sufficient" and Eldar or Tau require interaction between units to function properly...because the designers (and the fluff) say so. So alot of players run their armies incorrectly. Here's how:

Marines are left behind (devastators), not involved (hiding jump pack troops--think Battle of Delium...yes, it sounds silly to apply philosophy to non-intelligent agents but bear with me), isolated (tactical squads) or sacrificed (terminators, bike troops).

While on the other coin, Eldar are also often run incorrectly by putting them together. Avatar with Guardians, Autarch with Spears, Harlies in Falcons.

This creates a Nash Equilibrium because neither player is willing to answer negative to the question:

"Knowing the strategies of the other players, and treating the strategies of the other players as set in stone, can I benefit by changing my strategy?"

So most players refuse. Marines are 'rock hard' and can be by themselves. Eldar are 'fragile' and need to support each other.

This is false! Marines need to support each other, and it is the Eldar that do not need to support each other.

In short, what happens and how does game theory apply here?

"many players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that they can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium"

Remember the point of game theory is to find a solution to a common problem. The solution in 40k is your army vs their army, yes, solution. The problem is determining the winner. You both have to play the game, and with perfect play on both sides with the "correct" strategy you'll fight to a draw.

If you end up on tables 21-41 and stay there, slowly moving down...this is you.

I end up on the top ten tables because most players are, in fact, ignorant of the best decisions the other player COULD have made but in fact did not.

In short, you have to read this really long boring part now.

If a game has a unique Nash equilibrium and is played among players under certain conditions, then the NE strategy set will be adopted. This happens in tournaments when you generally face an opponent you've never played before, against his army you've also not faced before. Playing against "marines" is not playing against "Joes Salamanders at a GT", ok?

Sufficient conditions to guarantee that the Nash equilibrium is played are:

1. The players all will do their utmost to maximize their expected payoff as described by the game. (Everyone wants to win)
2. The players are flawless in execution. (I usually am, my opponents usually aren't)
3. The players have sufficient intelligence to deduce the solution. (Oh boy...I'll leave this one alone)
4. The players know the planned equilibrium strategy of all of the other players. (I do, but most of my opponents have nary a clue)
5. The players believe that a deviation in their own strategy will not cause deviations by any other players. (Players react, change something, and meet this condition)
6. There is common knowledge that all players meet these conditions, including this one. So, not only must each player know the other players meet the conditions, but also they must know that they all know that they meet them, and know that they know that they know that they meet them, and so on.

It probably seems silly so far, but then this is only one very small facet of game theory--and how does it apply to 40K?

Well, now you come to (Thomas) Schelling. He proposed that any bit of information that all participants in a coordination game would have, that would enable them all to focus on the same equilibrium, might solve the problem. Remember the problem is who wins the game, and the solution is your army vs his army. I realize this is a bit counterintuitive, but it's how my brain thinks. So what happens if I have ALL the bits, and you have only a handful? When we bargain over who wins the game, I have the advantage. Bargain does mean "play".

In short, if everyone else is playing a Nash Equilibrium and they have only the experience of their own army and it's strategy to play it with...but I have the experience of ALL armies and many strategies for each, can I not "cheat" the NE to my favor?

Essentially what happens when someone plays me, is I've already played the game both through previous games with armies similar enough to yours to proxy it and I've been on both sides of the NE equation.

I can then theorize what you plan to do, account for it, counter it before you do it, and in the end while there are countless and complex variations to what might happen in a given game of 40k I'm able to game theory it out successfully.

In the first minute of a given game I can "see" the outcome of the NE, and change the solution to my favor.

This is part brains, part experience, and not possible without a serious amount of game theory properly applied in short order.

Game theory now uses statistical probability almost exclusively. So can we, after all...it is mathhammer, right?

If you want to talk about how game theory translates into metagaming...oh boy that's a whole nother subject. lol

However, if you really want to see for yourself how you can really plan for what armies you are going to face and how you can incorporate those facts into your game theory...give Bayes theorum a whirl.

I hope this makes sense. I'll add more bits later.

I think I can summarize this:

1) Know your opponent's army. Know all the codexes.
2) When necessary, adjust your strategy to account for your opponent's expected strategy.

3) Playtesting gives you an edge.

I'm enjoying this. Certainly seems interesting.

Know thine enemy, know thyself.

Although pompous, I think that Stelek certainly has some valid points. I hope he decides to continue - although a little less on the how great he is and ignorant the rest of us are. I have no idea what "game theory" or "Bayes theorum" is and I hope Stelek can write down to my poor, uneducated level.

Also from the Book of Stelek 4:5,6 - The other way to get ahead:

I'm a believer in chaos theory, fractal statistics, probability modeling, etc and don't just go with the math from when I was a kid. I'm not being hoitie totie here, I passed my physics and advanced mathematics classes in college and the only place I've found use for them is in 40K.

The real world breaks common theories all the time. Ask any scientist. Why should I believe I'm superior to common knowledge?

I am unusually lucky.

Yeah. Lots of genuine information here.
For anyone interested in what Stelek is actually saying. I think a quick Wikipedia of the Sokal affair is probably your best bet.

I'm also interested in a continuation Stelek...as I play themed armies (Tzeentchian ones), I can usually only win games using my wits (and in-credible luck), but have found myself increasingly unable to do so (more experienced opponents seems to mostly hinder me). While I realize that playing such armies will usually make any of my fights uphill ones, it's still nice to catch up on more mathematics based approaches that I have less experience with in applying, to at least wiggle out a little extra-leverage in my favour.

And ey, got me to post after I dunno how many years* of not doing so. So pretty please, onward with the continuations!

*okay, only two years, but still. Haven't posted regularly since 4-6 years or so.

Stelek does a good job listing theories to look up and read about, and how they can be applied to understanding why some people are better than others at winning the game. Redbeard does an excellent job boiling down what it means for you.

Basically it comes down to thinking a few twists ahead of your opponant. He has a strategy and you have a strategy, both based on how your army works in a void (call it a void strategy). When you learn what army he has, you can deduce his void strategy, and you think of a strategy of how you intend to beat him, and he does likewise. If you anticipate his new, non-void strategy, you can come up with a 3rd strategy of how to deny it to him, and thus beat him. He will, if he is clever, do the same to you. If you anticipate that, you can then come up with a 4th strat, etc. Of course, if he never changes his void strat', your strat's 3 through N might be superfluous, or even self defeating.

So in the end, it comes down to both guessing accurately your opponant's strategies based on his army and list, and then accurately deducing just how many steps your opponant is going to make in changing strategies, and going only one step beyond that.

I am impressed. Never have I seen so many big words and ideas in the same place where nothing was actually stated, no insights were expressed, and everything was taken out of context.

So what happens if I have ALL the bits, and you have only a handful? When we bargain over who wins the game, I have the advantage. Bargain does mean "play".

Why do you get all the bits??? I want some. Seems unfair considering most game theory states the players start off in exactly the same position.

Nash equilibrium basically equates to playing for the draw. It comes into effect when the best available strategy for both players ends in a draw for both players all the time. This just doesn't happen. It also relates to situations where mutual agreement by both players can allow both players to gain a better outcome. This will not happen in warhammer because the outcomes are tie or 1win, 1loss.

In short, if everyone else is playing a Nash Equilibrium and they have only the experience of their own army and it's strategy to play it with...but I have the experience of ALL armies and many strategies for each, can I not "cheat" the NE to my favor?

NO. Otherwise it would not apply as the original question would be wrong.

1. The players all will do their utmost to maximize their expected payoff as described by the game. (Everyone wants to win)
2. The players are flawless in execution. (I usually am, my opponents usually aren't)
3. The players have sufficient intelligence to deduce the solution. (Oh boy...I'll leave this one alone)
4. The players know the planned equilibrium strategy of all of the other players. (I do, but most of my opponents have nary a clue)
5. The players believe that a deviation in their own strategy will not cause deviations by any other players. (Players react, change something, and meet this condition)
6. There is common knowledge that all players meet these conditions, including this one. So, not only must each player know the other players meet the conditions, but also they must know that they all know that they meet them, and know that they know that they know that they meet them, and so on.

Sure....
1). Ok, everyone wants to win.
2). Nobody is flawless in execution as the dice rule over all.
3). This requires a single solution to the draw. Not multiple solutions, or solutions where i win, you lose. This doesnt even apply to 40k.
4). So you know all the strategies available, and which one i am going to pick before I even move. Bravo. To meet this condition you must be able to predict exactly what will happen. Can you honestly say nobody has ever done anything surprising against you? (hint, stupid things can count as a surprise)
5). Back to playing for the draw with you cheating... If players react to any changes this condition is false. Do you react to bad dice rolls?

So most players refuse. Marines are 'rock hard' and can be by themselves. Eldar are 'fragile' and need to support each other.

This is false! Marines need to support each other, and it is the Eldar that do not need to support each other.

WHY. This is the only real thing you stated in your whole post and you didn't even say why.

In short your whole post seems irrelevant because you backed nothing up and you misapplied game theory...

Moz wrote:Also from the Book of Stelek 4:5,6 - The other way to get ahead:

I'm a believer in chaos theory, fractal statistics, probability modeling, etc and don't just go with the math from when I was a kid. I'm not being hoitie totie here, I passed my physics and advanced mathematics classes in college and the only place I've found use for them is in 40K.

The real world breaks common theories all the time. Ask any scientist. Why should I believe I'm superior to common knowledge?

I am unusually lucky.

Yeah. Lots of genuine information here.
For anyone interested in what Stelek is actually saying. I think a quick Wikipedia of the Sokal affair is probably your best bet.

Darnit, so are you saying Stelek has been playing us all for fools?

Hmmm let's see:

Re: Moz. How long did it take you to google that up. It was amusing, I did not realize I was a peer and dakka was a scientific journal. Good to know sarcasm is alive and well, in sans of anything useful to say, at least.

Re: cypher. I misapplied it, eh? Well actual game theorists don't think I did, but granted their knowledge of 40k is limited so I could just be pulling the wool over their eyes to make myself feel important. Since you haven't put up...I guess I can ignore that. I'm sorry I missed the WHY though, it was quite late. I'll fix that in a moment. By the way, it's difficult to back things up without documenting all of my games to provide them as evidence. Is this something I should do? "Hey do you mind if I setup my video equipment here to document how badly I kick your trash, for some silly argument on the internawts? Thanks a million, scrub!" Please be serious.

So, on to useful information. Hopefully degeneration won't continue to recur.

Nice, insult me without actual proof
What game theorists have backed you up? Do you know piles of them?

Lets try this one
caviot 4. The players know the planned equilibrium strategy of all of the other players.

Do you know all ways a game can end in a tie and what steps are necessary to get there?
Do you follow those steps knowing that if the opponent play the best he/she can then a tie is the best you can get?
Do your steps take into account luck?
Does this happen every game against equals?

If the answer to any of these is no then you misapplied the theory.

Stelek wrote:Example:

Alot of players believe Marines are "self-sufficient" and Eldar or Tau require interaction between units to function properly...because the designers (and the fluff) say so. So alot of players run their armies incorrectly. Here's how:

Marines are left behind (devastators), not involved (hiding jump pack troops--think Battle of Delium...yes, it sounds silly to apply philosophy to non-intelligent agents but bear with me), isolated (tactical squads) or sacrificed (terminators, bike troops).

While on the other coin, Eldar are also often run incorrectly by putting them together. Avatar with Guardians, Autarch with Spears, Harlies in Falcons.

Ah, the WHY part. Somehow I skipped this.

If you plan individually optimal courses of play, knowing your opponents will do so as well then the interest becomes the players strategies. Your strategy boils down to your complete plan of action, specified in it's entirety before the game starts, and it includes ALL of the options you might take when it's time to make said decision based on the information you have at the time.

So how does this relate to marines and eldar?

Players play that marines are 'self-sufficient' and can handle what comes their way, and so tend to run them as unsupported elements.
Players also play that Eldar are NOT 'self-sufficient' and cannot handle what comes their way, and so tend to run them in groups providing mutual support.

Why is this bad? Well, this is a noncooperative zerosum game--where everything I do takes away from what you can do, and over the course of the game one of us will have more than the other.

The marines are your baseline number. They are all the same with minimal differences.

Example: Tactical marines have 1 more attack in the shooting step, and assault marines have 1 more attack in the assault step. Otherwise, they are pretty much identical.

Now compare Eldar Guardians. Most are all -1 to their stats compared to marines, so when you compare guardians to marines they are indeed 'worse'.

This leads players to believe Eldar are 'weak' compared to Marines and make direct correlations between the two, looking at their points values to determine their return. This is mathhammer in a void, where you ignore the rest of the equation (the rest of the army) to find your utility index for a given model. Often expressed as 'so many shots to kill X'.

This works much like a war of attrition, which is fine but should not be used to base your decisions.

What happens when you bring elite Eldar troops to the game? They break all the math for marines vs guardians, do they not? In fact, elite Eldar units have a much higher utility than marines do despite having the same cost.

You do not need multiple units of elite eldar to take down single units of marines. If you've played with Harlequins, or against them, you should be able to understand this. You are +1 on the WS, you have higher strength than other Eldar units (on the charge), you have pseudo-power weapons (negating the 3+ save superiority of marines vs eldar), you have higher base attacks (4 times the number on the charge vs tactical marines), and you have superior initiative so you will always go first.

Are you not actually the self-sufficient force, and the MARINES are the ones needing support?

Compare shining spears, howling banshees, striking scorpions, seer councils...all of the Eldar close combat specialists are entirely designed to take marines apart one on one.

The only way to defeat Eldar is by having so many marines in one spot you cannot get your expected utility.

Which is what?

I lose nothing, you lose something--and both agents cost the same.

You can effectively deny elite Eldar their ability to gain something for nothing by forcing them to incur costs they cannot sustain, namely: Yes, you can kill most of this unit but the others near it will kill you. So what does the Eldar player gain? One unit swapped for another? As any Eldar player will tell you, this isn't good for an Eldar army as you often have just as small an army as Marines do.

This is why MEQ armies are beaten by so many players: Players run them as if each marine really IS a superbeing just because he costs twice the points of other armies grunts. This is false. You pay ALOT of points for ATSKNF, and having WS4, I4, and S4. What good is any of that if you get shot dead? Or assaulted by superior troops before you can swing, and your just as dead? It's not worth anything! Being the generalist that you are as a marine, makes you very vulnerable to specialists.

Everyone knows why Nidzilla works, right? Because it is a completely unbalanced army list. It isn't designed to kill marines, it's designed to kill everything by virtue of being completely unbalanced. The points spent have an extremely high utility against everyone, so it becomes in essence a good army. Marines are the baseline against which Nidzilla earns it's utility, and if you are under that baseline (guardians) those points spent just magnify.

So what happens when Eldar run elite Jetbike/harlie/tri-falcon-prism armies? They've put all of their utility into beating marines, but it works fine against non-marines (who don't meet the baseline and thus are 'worse' as far as utility goes). However, if you run marines out as individual units without support--the Eldar can come at you wherever they want, and beat you in one on one contests. Harlequins are just so obviously better that everyone runs them, but HB and Scorpions are also 'better' than your marines and will also beat them down in one-on-one contests.

It's one mathematical probability to run 6 Harlequins into 10 tactical marines. It's quite another to run them into 30.

Marines need to support each other because EVERYONE else in the game is designed to kill them.

Eldar do not need to support each other because only other Eldar (and a very very few select units across ALL the other armies in the game) can take you on, but then if it's Eldar on Eldar...haven't we just changed the baseline from Marines to Eldar and we're back to pulling a draw because all you can do is trade pawn for pawn?

It is irrational to believe you will walk your tactical marines across the board and rapid fire guardians to death, thus earning your own utility. Eldar players have a bluff, in their 12" range guns and 5+ save cannot stand against the marines--but do they ever actually do this? No. The apparent utility is thus a bluff. So marines cannot ever regain their utility which against the ENTIRE Eldar army is only good against guardians.

This puts marines on the defensive immediately, since you can only gain back the points you spent by eliminating the enemy.

Marines can only enter into the game theory by playing the army as a solid block, and not as separate pieces that are self-sufficient--because this is a delusion, they are not.

Eldar can play supported, but do not need to do so to enter the game theory and be run successfully. They are not missing self-sufficiency, they have it.

Now how do they enter into the game theory? If you think of the game of 40K as an ESS, and each game will be a NE, then when each player makes a bid to win the other player needs to be able to make their own bid to counter it. This is known as a 'ruinious situation', what will become a draw...where both players lose, and there can be no winner. However, if you remember that Eldar can play above the baseline of marines you can beat them soundly when they are isolated. So instead of losing less, you lose nothing and gain everything. This is the basis of playing 40k with game theory--how do you beat the enemy soundly enough to generate a win?

This strategy is an optimal balance of risk and reward, but does not guarantee the win.

You still have to factor in experience, terrain, dice, skill, and the environment which makes things a little more difficult to know the outcome.

However, if you really think about it--how many times have you setup, and known you were going to win AT DEPLOYMENT? Against a complete stranger?

You've successfully intuited the armies into game theory, you've figured out the statistical probabilities, and realized a win was coming.

Hopefully this all makes sense.

cypher wrote:Nice, insult me without actual proof
What game theorists have backed you up? Do you know piles of them?

I follow what they say. Do you? What was the last statistical journal you read? The last game theory journal you read? Can you name one? Hell, name me the last time you read a peer-reviewed journal. Name one.

Why would a game theorist even talk to me? Biology does not equal wargaming.

As far as I know, there are no game theorists in 40k. Call me a first.

I don't even do the math anymore, I've gotten so good at it I can intuit my way.

Oh, and I don't recall insulting you--ignoring your comments because you don't know what you're talking about isn't an insult.

It's just the way it is.

cypher wrote:
Lets try this one
caviot 4. The players know the planned equilibrium strategy of all of the other players.

Do you know all ways a game can end in a tie and what steps are necessary to get there?
Do you follow those steps knowing that if the opponent play the best he/she can then a tie is the best you can get?
Do your steps take into account luck?
Does this happen every game against equals?

If the answer to any of these is no then you misapplied the theory.

Sadly for you, my answer is yes.

I keep telling you I'm superior to you.

I wish you'd listen.

Sadly again, I've adapted the theory. If you asked a biologist and a economist to agree on what game theory is, they can't.

If you knew anything about game theory, you'd know at least this much.

Can you please stop acting like you know, when you're obviously a layman and you do not?

Thanks. Keeping this thread clear of your muddying clutter will help the others.

Sadly for you, my answer is yes.

I keep telling you I'm superior to you.

So, you are better than me and should therefore win...
That means...wait for it
You are wrong and you misapplied the theory. Congrats, you lose. The theory doesn't apply if one player cannot win because obviously they could have done something better.

Adapting the theory should not change fundamental idea behind it which is that in some games the best option is to play for the tie and both players can do so.

O, and you aren't better than me. Sorry.

you guys get out much?

you guys get out much?

Not recently. 70 hour weeks are killing me.

Please keep it civil, folks. If you disagree, rebut. Politely. If it really, really bothers you, don't post at all and consider using the Ignore feature.

Thank you.

Stelek,
Let me try and rephrase what you just said. I'm certainly not the brightest bulb in the socket so bear with me. Also, could you type slower next time - I'm a slow reader.

So, what you're saying in regards to Marines and Eldar is that based on the nature of the game (being designed with Marines as the standard), Marines are forced to work together and Eldar, with their specialized units, can work in a vacuum and still produce a favorable result.

Okay. I'll buy that.

Marines are generalists and need support.
Eldar are specialists and can operate independently.

So far, not a surprise.

So how does one actually go about using Game Theory in a game? Assume that I'm not sharp enough to cut a pound of raw liver and use small(er) words. Wikipedia is getting a huge workout here at work.

Also, as a favor, when you refer to the Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) could you spell it out at least a few times because otherwise it is hard for us with lesser intellects to figure this stuff out.

Thanks.

But all of this pales to the most widely accepted tactical truism in the history of mankind. As delivered by someone who'd know.

Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth. - Mike Tyson

whitedragon wrote:
Darnit, so are you saying Stelek has been playing us all for fools?

Just anyone who takes him seriously.

You can use games theory to analyze 40K. The question is why bother? Unless you have Stelek-level intelligence, you need such ridiculously complicated modeling and mathematics that the vast majority of people couldn't hope to benefit from it. Games theory can be useful, if you've got the math to really understand what's going on (and to be honest, I don't. Got up to Calc in college and fulfilled my core reqs, and never set foot in the math building again.)

On the other hand...anyone else been here long enough to remember Entropy Based Warfare and the discussions on oldest Dakka? A lot of the foundational stuff of EBW depends on games theory, so I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. But there are simpler ways to reach the same conclusions.

The problem with tactical discussions like Steleks is sometimes not that he comes to the incorrect conclusions, its that his methods for coming to those conclusions are so arcane and potentially frought with error that its impossible to make generalized rules of conduct from them.

Now, to quote something I read someplace: "The important things are always simple. The simple things are always hard." Words to live by.

Anyways, if you're looking for a really good way to analyze and debate 40K tactics (or any tactical system), what you really have to look at is the works of John Boyd. If you've ever studied OODA loops, you've looked at his life's work.

Essentially, 40K tactics boil down into three stages.

Stage 1: Novice -

Playing your army.

Stage 2: Journeyman

Playing against your opponent's army.

Stage 3: Master

Playing against your opponent.

PapaNurgle wrote:So how does one actually go about using Game Theory in a game? Assume that I'm not sharp enough to cut a pound of raw liver and use small(er) words. Wikipedia is getting a huge workout here at work.

I really can't distill how to make it work in even a paragraph. People write books on the subject.

I'll try though.

How do you apply game theory to 40k, in an actual game?

Well, you've got to remember that most of 40k in the tournament scene is about deception.

Now, I've said clearly I will not cheat. So how is deception not a cheat?

When you play a game, telling your opponent your orks can really move 8" a turn is cheating (and a deception).

Telling your opponent you can possibly move 21" a turn, while technically true, is deception (but is not cheating).

Now remember, in a GT setting is where we are going to game theory.

You will never meet your opponent again, and you never have met him before--this is the golden rule.

So, all that out of the way:

Let's say I'm a business. Normally, my customers (opponents) have a choice whether they are going to shop at my store. (In a GT, they do not have this option and must, in fact, shop at my store [aka they have to play me]).

Then I have the option if I'm going to be honest or not be honest. Keep in mind that businesses are not honest because they are moral, but because they are greedy. Here's an example--if Smiths decides to earn 500$ profit from you by gouging you, instead of the 50$ they could normally make--would you shop there again? No. What if you could not shop anywhere else though? In a GT, you MUST shop at my store. You will never shop at my store again.

So I can gouge you. I can maximize my profit (win) by deceiving you. There are lots of ways to deceive without cheating.

Essentially, at my store I promise to treat you fairly and immediately break the promise.

Before people go on about sportsmanship, this isn't about sportsmanship. I often remind people to move units they've forgotten to, or to shoot or assault with units. I'm not a poor sport about minor mistakes. I expect everyone to make minor mistakes, but I do not count on mistakes to win.

Example: A defensive football team (American football, not soccer) expects an offensive team to fumble. If they cannot create these situations for the fumble to occur, they lose. Thus the current offensive mindset in the NFL, enough defense to stop the other guy; lots of offense to generate scores...and enough skills to stop fumbles.

This is how I play:

I analyze the game board.
I analyze the army presented to me.
I decide what is the method my opponent can use to win.
I remove said method.
I do not deviate.

The NE can be manipulated, so to speak, with a simple poker face. (FYI, I'm banned from most amateur events around the valley.)
I make it appear as if my opponent and I are in equilibrium.
I play down my skill level to roughly match the level I detect in them.
I downplay the elements in my army I want him to fear, even though they are not the units I will use to remove his ability to win.
You do not need to beat the other army, you need to beat your opponent.

Alot of players have said playing me is like playing in a sandstorm--they don't know what's going on, they can't see the strom coming until it's too late, and I suck the life out of them.

It's a tournament setting. It's entirely different from a regular game at your FLGS.

Without knowing anything about me, they believe what I say even as what I do is entirely different.

Alot of players 'react' to what the other player does, thus upsetting the equilibrium.

If I decide what I'm going to do at the start of the game, and I stick to it--haven't I removed your ability to influence my play?

I've set it up so it LOOKS like there is an NE between us, and I'm a liar--there isn't.

I'm controlling the NE by my actions, and hiding them from the other player.

Could I do this with repeated play? No. I cannot be deceptive in this manner, it's too easily detected after repeated play with the same opponent.

So locally, I use other versions of game theory to manage my opponents play.

Negotiating.
Positioning.
Managing.

The unexpected and the paradoxical are the norm when humans compete.

Knowing this, and why, this is using game theory.

-------------------------------------

An excellent primer for anyone who really wants to learn is:

Game Theory at Work: How to Use Game Theory to Outthink and Outmaneuver Your Competition by James D. Miller.

Give it a read. It's an excellent start.

Cent: I don't think you need to be a genius to grasp game theory.

As you said, everything is simple.

That book I list avoids math like it's a plague, which it is for anyone hoping to understand game theory.

It's simple, yet it makes sense.

Can I even run algebraic formulas anymore? Nope, long since forgotten. I got a little further than you did, but I've forgotten all of that as well. I can still use game theory in 40k. I think anyone can.

Some of it is experience, some intuition, some is just a different way of exploring strategic concepts...but game theory can tie it all together. Add in a good grasp of metagaming and I think you can really improve your play.

Which as I've said many times, is really why I'm here. I want people to kick my ass. It's the only times I can really have fun in 40k anymore. Winning is nice, but always winning is dull. So I can be like mauleed, and quit, or I can try and make others better.

List building is only one part of what I want to impart to the community.

Tactics, experience, and game theory/metagaming is my ultimate goal.

There are lots of scrubs, but I think most of them can be potentially very good gamers and don't need to play for years to get that way.

Any of this make sense?

As someone doing a Maths PhD, I'm confused why you are referring to Nash Equilbrium and Game theory. Surely one of the major assumptions of most game theories is that players are rational?
Many of your tactics seem to rely on deceiving your opponent to make mistakes. If you are playing against a non-rational opponent and trying to maximise payoff (as opposed to minmaxing) then this is outside the sphere of normal game theory. (Though I agree it's a very good idea).
(The comments about the Prisoners Dilemma and 'I promise to treat you fairly and immediately break the promise' are spot on of course, for single games).

Stelek wrote:
Tactics, experience, and game theory/metagaming is my ultimate goal.

Weren't you just arguing that there is no metagame?

I believe most players are irrational, actually.

I put down my Eldar and marine players usually do this:

Look at me.
Sigh.
Look at my army.
Sigh.
Sigh some more.
Tell me how Eldar are cheesy.
Tell me I'm cheesy for playing Eldar.
Sigh.
Sigh some more.

IG drop armies watch me put my army into anti-deep strike defense, and repeat the above.

If I'm not playing Marines (which as a rule, I don't) I get alot of the above sequence. Replace 'Eldar' with 'The Army I Am Currently Playing'.

Rational? In what world?

Seems pretty irrational to me.

Most of my tactics actually rely on me playing the same, regardless of my opponents mistakes. If I can anticipate the outcome before the game begins--and play accordingly--isn't that how you want to run game theory correctly? You can't change midstream and still run game theory.

Alot of people ask if I'm surprised--answer is, no, I don't get surprised in a way that is bad for my game.

When I see crappy lists or stupid game moves, it's surprising but it's not like it's going to throw me off.

"Orly??" is my reply. Then I go back to what I was doing.

Centurian99 wrote:

Stelek wrote:
Tactics, experience, and game theory/metagaming is my ultimate goal.

Weren't you just arguing that there is no metagame?

No, I was arguing that the definition of metagaming everyone here is using (the one off wikipedia) has no meaning in 40k, and I attempted to define it.

[quote=Stelek
1. Invalid. There is no metagaming in 40k. It took a stupid man to put it out there for everyone to rally around a catchy phrase. Doesn't make it right.

Stelek wrote:
Alot of players have said playing me is like playing in a sandstorm--they don't know what's going on, they can't see the strom coming until it's too late, and I suck the life out of them.

I think I heard this on WWF in the 1980's. Didn't Randy 'Macho Man' savage quip this on a Saturday Night Main Event one night?

Prisoner's Dilemna

Hot tip: When pompously preaching to people using terms you've selected to highlight how much you know, and how much they don't, try to spell the words correctly, rather than repeatedly incorrectly, proving it's not just a typo.

The players are flawless in execution. (I usually am, my opponents usually aren't)

Jesus, dude. What a pompous post this is. You literally just spent a thousand words saying "know your army, and know your opponent's" only wrapping it in the most convoluted attempts at self aggrandizement in the history of the self and of aggrandizement.

You SERIOUSLY need to spend less time in fawning adoration of your own intellect.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be so fascinated with your repackaging of common knowledge.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would have a far better command of the English language.

If you really knew what was interesting, you'd spend this many words on this:

"This is false! Marines need to support each other, and it is the Eldar that do not need to support each other."

If you can prove this to people, that bear some insight.

All I get from you is grand promises of wisdom, assurances your mind is so grand it can do nothing else but go against the grain, and befuddle the common wisdom. Then I ask you for a 1500 point Chaos list, and what do you give me?

"2 flying lash princes, 3x2 oblits, 13 thousand sons, 13 plague marines."

That's damn near the list that was in the most recent White Dwarf. You're not just conventional, you're WHITE DWARF CONVENTIONAL. Wow, you noticed that Lash was good! You figured out that Oblits are good! You noticed that AP3 and Feel No Pain are good! You and everyone else, dude.

In the end, you display the exact opposite of wisdom. You make the simple into the complex. "Know your army, know your opponents." This is obvious to even a beginning player of the game. You managed to sacrifice a thousand words on the altar you've built to yourself, and all of us are just a little bit more slowed to have witnessed it.