I will also say in regards to dice I am having to adjust slightly to using diceys and not real dice. I agree with Emperor Mollari that factoring in the possible outcome of the dice is a huge part of the game. Besides I don’t understand the LL stuff anyway.
@Emperor:
The game was designed to be played with Random Dice…the whole layout of the board, initial placement of forces, starting incomes…etc.
Revised is not very unbalanced, that is compared to classic.
With no bids it’s still just as unbalanced in ADS as with LL.
How balanced is revised with cash only bid? Axis need more than 10 ipc for sure.
Again, because of bigger variation of dice outcome, same players play each other 100 games with ADS and LL, then
axis will win more games with ADS than LL. This doesn’t mean that the game is balanced though.
As I said earlier, the only way for axis to win approx. 50% of all games without any bid is to roll for LRA G1, and
go for sealion also G1. Otherwise the game is unbalanced.
The balance of revised does not relate to LL or ADS.
Certain tactics are all but unassailable in LL. Almost every crack pot, insane idea I’ve had for a strategy in AAR has worked flawlessly in LL but been crippled in a myriad of different ways in ADS.
That’s probably do to the spiraling effect that the luck of the dice bring.
Losing the battle for Stalingrad does not only effect the battle for Stalingrad. It effects what your allies have to do to help you recover, it effects your builds, your position, what you have available, what your enemy can do, etc.
In LL, if you lose a battle you initiated, it’s never going to be a devastating loss (unless you failed 3rd grade mathematics.)
@Cmdr:
In LL, if you lose a battle you initiated, it’s never going to be a devastating loss (unless you failed 3rd grade mathematics.)
Yes, it can. To attack a capital with only 30-40% would be a smart move if the map looks bad and a player
has less tuv so that he would not win otherwise an attack on a capital succeeds.
And players do mistakes and bad combat also in LL. The difference may be that in LL a player will lose
because of not doing combat, rather than losing battles.
To attack a capital with 80% can be a good move, even if it fails.
I once (LL game) had a tuv disadvantage of approx. 150-200,
I could take Moscow with 1-2 punch but failed,
it was 80% with more than one unit left. If I had taken Moscow I would still be in the game.
I also won a game (LL) where the opponent attacked my capital with approx. 40%. He failed and I won.
This is not uncommon.
You may disagree with my opinion that many, if not all, tactics and strats that works good in LL also works in ADS.
Many of your statements about LL is actually wrong.
I do not hate ADS, but I hate losing to dice…I still play ADS though,
I think I favor LL vs ADS about 60-40 or 70-30.
Hence why I said unless you failed third grade math. In other words, you are making an attack you almost certainly won’t win in either ADS or LL.
I just don’t see 8 infantry, 4 armor, 2 fighters defending Moscow killing 20 infantry, 12 armor, 6 fighters and a bomber in LL. It has a much higher potential to happen in ADS, though.
@Emperor:
You completely miss my point. The game was designed to be used with random dice.
Should I attack country X…statistically I should win, but what if I lose? Will it cost me the game? If yes then I may not attack. In a LL game I would attack. That’s why I say LL breaks the game.
So proving or disproving a strategy in LL means nothing, since it won’t hold up, when confronted with the REAL RULES.
So says the guy who allows rerolling in order to see how things play out. LL allows you to see how things play out. Hot dice shows nothing. LL is not the real way to play, but it is a valid way of assessing strategy. Hot dice does not show strategy. Hot dice destroys strategy and turns it into yahtzee.
in the case of ridiculous results, re-rolling isn’t a bad idea in a non-competition game.
Do you really want to win because someone attacked you with 30 tanks and got no hits while your 15 defending infantry scored 100% on round 1?
Then you just argued my case for me - LL is excellent for testing strategies, and completely inappropriate for competition.
It’s not uncommon that one player attacks with less than 50% and still wins the battle, in LL.
Maybe it happens even more times with ADS.
Imo, a real difference in outcome of ADS and LL games is the conceding in LL, and gamble in ADS.
Sometimes you can gamble in LL, but in many games the important TT’s are too well protected.
@Cmdr:
in the case of ridiculous results, re-rolling isn’t a bad idea in a non-competition game.
Do you really want to win because someone attacked you with 30 tanks and got no hits while your 15 defending infantry scored 100% on round 1?
Are you stupid or you pretending, the above example is ADS, I presume :roll:
Re-rolling is cheating, luckily you cant just re-roll in TripleA, usually.
What planet do live on Jennifer, thats the reason I currently use LL more often than ADS. I been screwed too many
games by 0.01% outcome battles, and +/- 10 units above/below average dice in many battles, this happens
too often.
Lets say we play each other, I ask you if you prefer LL or ADS? You answer ADS for sure.
If you then attack with 30 tanks, no hits, and my 15 inf all hits :lol:
You just lost the game, hopefully. If you cant take it, then play LL :evil:
Sometimes ADS kills LL and this is a good example :mrgreen:
Everyone please stick to talking about Russian Fighters.
We already have an ADS vs. LL thread.
@Bean:
In other words, that’s 30 IPCs spent to kill 0 IPCs spent, since the German navy and Japanese transports were already on the board to start with. Does that still sound good to you? What I hate when people start using IPC values is that they don’t really understand how to make it relevant. There is a very big difference between spending IPCs to take out existing IPCs versus spending IPCs to take out the other guy’s spent IPCs.
You’re a clever fellow ain’t you? If starting units are as worthless as you claim they are then why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and start again without any?
Wow, you missed the point. I would rather have the US take out that navy with their starting 3 fig 1 bom rather than have Russia build 3 additional fighters just to take it out.
What planet do live on Jennifer, thats the reason I currently use LL more often than ADS. I been screwed too many
Planet TERROR!
(now on DVD!)
this poll got me thinking back when i first saw it and i decided to try it out. i have now played 4 or 5 games with R1 purchouse being 2 fighters. i have not regreted it once (ok maybe once when i got too ambisouse on R1 by making two attacks). i think the added punch of 2 fighters can be a big help in the game for Russia. the flexability they give the Russian offence and deffence are great. you can get into a teritory trade with German and not expose your valuable units to counter strikes and also guard your valuable teritories.
the loss of early fire power and fooder is far out waighed by the flex and fire power latter in the game.
Try Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter on R1.
An added FIG requires added fodder…
3 INF, 1 ARM, 1 FIG.
Without adequate INF fodder, you end up unable to maximize the benefit of the extra FIG(s).
As an alternate…
2 INF, 2 ART, 1 FIG…
But that leaves you more confined to Germany and reduces the potential threat to Japan allowing them to advance more quickly with no REAL threat of counters…
I was thinking of being frugal for rounds 2 and 3 and building only infantry to supplement the extra fig and armor.
The armor is just really nice as anchors.
how much infantry fodder do you need?
what risk level do you take when trading?
for 1-3 inf defending, do you always send the same number of infantry?
If I buy Russian fighters at all I’ll try to spread the purchase out over a turn or two (read that: save ipcs). Otherwise I always run into the “not enough boots on the ground” syndrome. In theory I’ve tried to justify their outright purchase before by telling myself “yah, but this will ‘pay for itself’ with an extra attack hit here and there and/or allow something last another roll.” But in practice it always seems to come down to the same thing: if I’m not placing at least 7 Russian units a turn I’m seriously short on boots somewhere sooner or later. It’s almost always a shortage in Asia too since Germany is the closer front. If I don’t have the boots to spare to send east they just don’t get sent. So Japan usually likes Russian fighter purchases, Germany not so much. ~ZP
