Originally posted by brobluto The question that has to be cleared up is, does the opponent say, "You've hit my _____" prior to saying "you sunk my ____". Or do they just say "hit"?
If it's the latter (which what I assumed in my proposal), you must continue in the checkerboard fashion to determine that it is NOT a 3,4, or 5 hit ship, which the odds are in favor it is. If the checkerb ...[text shortened]... rch for the other hit immediately, and once killed, can proceed with the 3 space method.
i disagree: i think that a faster approach to continuing the checkerboard is, after a single hit, take an immediate sidebar from your algorithm to sink the ship you've just hit.
that is to say, if you hit at C5, then check C6, C4, B5 and D5. at most, you get three misses before you figure out the orientation of the ship, and this is faster than the possible 7 misses you get from hitting the destroyer and continuing the checkerboard around it.
Agreed. And I thought this went without saying, its pointless not to finish off any damaged ships. After the sinking whatever system is in place has to be modified.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Agreed. And I thought this went without saying, its pointless not to finish off any damaged ships. After the sinking whatever system is in place has to be modified.
It's not like sinking a ship gives you any tactical benefits in standard Battleship (although the one on my phone heavily modifies the game, giving each player a Street Fighter style "rage bar" with "super attacks"; a different one for each ship. There's also a variation where you get one attack per ship.
But not in standard Battleship.
However, finishing off ships is a good idea because you might actually hit a second ship that's adjacent to the first one instead of a second hit on the first ship.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung It's not like sinking a ship gives you any tactical benefits in standard Battleship (although the one on my phone heavily modifies the game, giving each player a Street Fighter style "rage bar" with "super attacks"; a different one for each ship. There's also a variation where you get one attack per ship.
But not in standard Battleship.
However ...[text shortened]... a second ship that's adjacent to the first one instead of a second hit on the first ship.
i disagree... even without the idea of hitting adjacent ships: if you kill the destroyer (two space ship) then you no longer have to allow for the possibility that a ship is within a two by two region. if you miss at B3, D4, C6, and A5 (after eliminating the destroyer) then no ship can appear in the 2x2 square in between these squares (B4+C4+B5+C5). so finishing off a ship (if it's the smallest ship) gives you an advantage... in that you no longer have to search for a two-square ship; you can limit your search to a three-square ship within a given region.
this means you can expand out from a-based checkerboard to an optimal search based around three-long ships
Originally posted by Aetherael i disagree... even without the idea of hitting adjacent ships: if you kill the destroyer (two space ship) then you no longer have to allow for the possibility that a ship is within a two by two region. if you miss at B3, D4, C6, and A5 (after eliminating the destroyer) then no ship can appear in the 2x2 square in between these squares (B4+C4+B5+C5). so f ...[text shortened]... you can expand out from a-based checkerboard to an optimal search based around three-long ships
Originally posted by AThousandYoung It's not like sinking a ship gives you any tactical benefits in standard Battleship (although the one on my phone heavily modifies the game, giving each player a Street Fighter style "rage bar" with "super attacks"; a different one for each ship. There's also a variation where you get one attack per ship.
But not in standard Battleship.
However ...[text shortened]... a second ship that's adjacent to the first one instead of a second hit on the first ship.
And how is that different from continuing checkerboard?
Originally posted by Aetherael i disagree: i think that a faster approach to continuing the checkerboard is, after a single hit, take an immediate sidebar from your algorithm to sink the ship you've just hit.
that is to say, if you hit at C5, then check C6, C4, B5 and D5. at most, you get three misses before you figure out the orientation of the ship, and this is faster than the possible 7 misses you get from hitting the destroyer and continuing the checkerboard around it.
I disagree. A hit in C5 would make more sense to check C7, C3, A5 and E5. You will PROBABLY only miss at most 3 times, since the odds are that it's NOT the Destroyer and you'll still end up knowing which way the ship is facing while simultaneously verifying that the Destroyer is not in the 2X2 square containing C7, C3, A5, or E5, which is a much bigger section than what you propose. Your way only negates one of those combos and therfore wastes moves if it's NOT the destroyer.
Once you sink 3 non-Destroyer ships, then it's a 50/50 gamble as to whether or not it's the Destroyer and either method would be acceptable.
Originally posted by brobluto I disagree. A hit in C5 would make more sense to check C7, C3, A5 and E5. You will PROBABLY only miss at most 3 times, since the odds are that it's NOT the Destroyer and you'll still end up knowing which way the ship is facing while simultaneously verifying that the Destroyer is not in the 2X2 square containing C7, C3, A5, or E5, which is a much bigger sect ...[text shortened]... 50/50 gamble as to whether or not it's the Destroyer and either method would be acceptable.
Originally posted by brobluto I disagree. A hit in C5 would make more sense to check C7, C3, A5 and E5. You will PROBABLY only miss at most 3 times, since the odds are that it's NOT the Destroyer and you'll still end up knowing which way the ship is facing while simultaneously verifying that the Destroyer is not in the 2X2 square containing C7, C3, A5, or E5, which is a much bigger sect ...[text shortened]... 50/50 gamble as to whether or not it's the Destroyer and either method would be acceptable.
my whole point was that AFTER you know for a fact you've killed the destroyer, it makes the rest of your decisions easier in that you no longer have to allow for the possibility of a 2-square ship. you can then employ a more spread out algorithm without losing accuracy. so if you get a hit somewhere, it is extremely useful to "finish out" the ship before continuing on with the algorithm, because you not only allow for the possibility of finding adjacent ships, you give yourself a very real possibility for opening up your search algorithm.
even though my example in a previous post wasn't exactly accurate, the fact is if the destroyer is already gone, that simply missing at A3 and C1 (for example) completely discounts the possibility of a ship at A1. This would simply not be true if the destroyer were still around, and this points to my reasoning that you can space out your algorithm if you know the destroyer is already gone, hence the priority in finishing out a ship (over that of continuing the checkerboard) after you've achieved a hit.
Originally posted by brobluto I disagree. A hit in C5 would make more sense to check C7, C3, A5 and E5. You will PROBABLY only miss at most 3 times, since the odds are that it's NOT the Destroyer and you'll still end up knowing which way the ship is facing while simultaneously verifying that the Destroyer is not in the 2X2 square containing C7, C3, A5, or E5, which is a much bigger sect ...[text shortened]... 50/50 gamble as to whether or not it's the Destroyer and either method would be acceptable.
lastly, a hit in C7 (to use your example) doesn't discount anything at all if you allow for possible adjacencies. all it tells you is you hit a ship, not in any way the length of said ship, nor that it is connected to your hit at C5. when i was proposing a 2x2 section, i was not talking about the 2x2 stretch of checkboard hits i was discussing an actual 2x2 section of board (like D4-D5-E4-E5).
take another read at my proposed strategy about "finishing out the ships"... i think you'll find it doesn't waste any more moves than your algorithm for non-destroyer ships (in fact the greatest total number of misses for a single ship is 3, which matches or bests the checkerboard for finding ships), but it does become more efficient when it IS the destroyer (confining our search to only three possible misses, where your search could easily end up with 6 or 7 misses).
Originally posted by Aetherael my whole point was that AFTER you know for a fact you've killed the destroyer, it makes the rest of your decisions easier in that you no longer have to allow for the possibility of a 2-square ship. you can then employ a more spread out algorithm without losing accuracy. so if you get a hit somewhere, it is extremely useful to "finish out" the ship before ...[text shortened]... inishing out a ship (over that of continuing the checkerboard) after you've achieved a hit.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I am merely stating that the best way to finish out the ship is still hitting every other point around the hit, not the ones immediately next to it, until all 4 come up blank, then you KNOW that it's the Destroyer.
Originally posted by Aetherael lastly, a hit in C7 (to use your example) doesn't discount anything at all if you allow for possible adjacencies. all it tells you is you hit a ship, not in any way the length of said ship, nor that it is connected to your hit at C5. when i was proposing a 2x2 section, i was not talking about the 2x2 stretch of checkboard hits i was discussing an actual ...[text shortened]... h to only three possible misses, where your search could easily end up with 6 or 7 misses).
we can only argue this point if we know what the rules are. When a hit is made, does the person say "Hit" or "You hit my Destroyer"?
Originally posted by brobluto we can only argue this point if we know what the rules are. When a hit is made, does the person say "Hit" or "You hit my Destroyer"?
After the ships have been positioned, the game proceeds in a series of rounds. In each round, each player has a turn. During a turn, the player announces a list of target squares in the opponents' grid which are to be shot at. If a ship occupies one of the squares, then it takes a hit. When all of the squares of a ship have been hit, the ship is sunk. After the target list has been given, the opponent then announces which of his ships have been hit. If at the end of a round all of one player's ships have been sunk, the game ends and the other player wins.
The number of target squares that a player may shoot at in a given turn is determined by the condition of the players' own ships at the beginning of the round. Each player has many shots as he or she has vessels afloat in each turn. Thus each time a player's ship is entirely destroyed, that player has one fewer shot on all subsequent turns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_(game)
I thought the standard rule was one shot per side, with one shot per ship being a nonstandard variation. Other than that, you can see that the defending player says "you hit my X" after each hit.
Originally posted by brobluto I'm not disagreeing with you. I am merely stating that the best way to finish out the ship is still hitting every other point around the hit, not the ones immediately next to it, until all 4 come up blank, then you KNOW that it's the Destroyer.
ah.. i was not properly considering your postion. i will take some time to think about it and get back to you either with agreement, or some evidentiary refutation 🙂 will take me a little time to play out the possibilities
Battleship
19 Apr '08 06:19
Back to Top