I thought the best strategy to counter KJF was to KRF with Germany, since the Allies are ignoring you.
1UK explosion > 1J counter
-
the diffrent in luck between LL ore dice, is there are more outcomes in dice, but there is still Luck in LL. who wins the battle.
ofc there is the battle u are sure to win, and thats a big diffrents, but whith the exampel u have given anout 6 tanks atackning 3 inf an 2tanks, u will alse be sure to take loses that, that is not sure when u play dice. That is right ther isent a gamble there, but my point it that i am willing to take more gambels when i now that i at least, is sure to take some units from the other player. How this works on other people i do not now.
The 12 tanks vs 12 tanks is less a gamble in LL, but i will be more likly to take the gamble in LL. So if i playet dice ther woud be no gamble, but in LL there woud.
8 tanks vs 8 tanks wont is not total deat.
1 round 4 kills to each side
2 round 2 kills to each side
3 round 1 kill to each side
4 round 1 tank vs 1tankThat is more than 1 outcome there are 3. In dice there will be many more, and thats the diffrents.
But lucky, we are free to play what we want, no one is forcet to play LL ore dice. And im not saying that LL is better than dice, i just like it better. And im just trying to make some points about that there is luck in LL. And many games will be determent of luck.
so feel free to play what u want, i just dont like people bash either LL ore dice, and say the game is meant to be played like one of the other. Just because they dont like it.
Hey i even some times take a game whith dice. I just dont have so much fun as when i play LL. And we all now it is all about the fun. But if someone will pay me to play dice il do it anyday :wink:
-
Romulus
i will debate almost any thing, but not on who have the better players overall, it is just a waste of time. People will never agree, and i have herad that debate so many times.we can debate in a context that im all up for. Like in the lobby the top players play LL, and on this forum the top players play dice(im not sure im right on the last one, i dont play on this forum.)
but how woud u debate who is the best players of the 2 sides. The only way you can finde out, is to play each other.
If u want to finde out stop the takning and play some games.
I realy dont care who is the best, i just play to have fun. And that is one of the reasons i think it is a waste of time and a stupid debate, at least to me. Others can do as they like. :-)On a side note can anyone tell me what that karma stuf do and how it works.
-
I perfectly agree with you Enskive.
In fact I am not asking who is the better.
I am trying to discuss the differences between the two systems. I even think that the two systems requires really different skills.And a comparison may not be done. Neither a games between two player is possible: one of the two have to change system and so doing he is at disadvantage.
-
Players that DON’T play Low Luck are better. :-D
Go home team, go!
(the above is merely the opinion of the author, of course)
(or is it? . . . dun dun dun)
-
A&A is really different with LL and ordinary dice.
A lot of things change. Tactics, logistics and Strategies have to take in account the LL, so you ave to adjust and adapt playing style.It is not a question of better or not. It is a question fo difference.
The issue about LL specifically belongs in specific thread but I do not agree that strats have anything to do with
LL or reg dice.
If someone plays with techs, NA’s or VC regularly then imo this is an imortant difference, i.e. in some competitions
they play with a set amount of time and VC’s that means completely different gameplay than the usual domination rules
most ppl use both in the lobby and in this forum (I guess).
KJF strat or opening moves are not very different between LL and reg dice.
The ukr attack R1 is a standard by most players, although u can use 2 tanks and everything else that can reach, this is usually enough with LL, not so obvious with reg dice, but this is a minor issue imo.
A KJF will not work better or worse with LL or reg dice. Same as the US shuck-shuck from WCA to Afr.
As already mentioned, strafing is a completely different aspect with LL, but general strats are not.
I can’t see that logistics, which is one of the most crucial elements for all players, have anything to do with either LL or reg dice settings. -
Ok, Lucifer, I have not explained well my thought. Of Course high level strategy do not changes. Of course is still ste same game.
My opinion, that could be wrong, is: I think that different skill are required.
Strategy difference, IMHO, are related to the factors to consider. There are different events and “signal” to check when planning with LL or ordinary dice.
LL have a major “combination” aspect, in the chess sense, when coming to the tactic and logistic aspects. There are optimal allocation that may be done. Sometime it is useless to send a unit in a battle but it is more useful to employ it in another one.
Ordinary game require a “positional” approach, always in the chess sense, reasoning and planning is more abstract and based also on the experience. Allocation of forces have not an optimized solution.
However, I only play face2face games. We have played also with LL, but we play more with ordinary luck. So these are my personal opinion, and I may be wrong.
-
The issue about LL specifically belongs in specific thread but I do not agree that strats have anything to do with
LL or reg dice.Your strategies should change DRASTICALLY depending on whether or not you use LL or regular dice.
In Low Luck, you don’t have to calculate the possible results of bad dice outcomes. With regular dice, you MUST calculate the possible results of bad dice.
-
With regular dice, you MUST calculate the possible results of bad dice.
This is overexaggerated. You use actually just about the same method of estimation by counting dice punch and unit count. Doesn’t matter in LL or regular dice, you still attack 1 inf with 2 inf 1 fig, etc. If you try to “make up” for bad dice by adding more forces, you will lose in the long run because you’re on average spending more than you need to.
The huge difference is in strafing. With regular dice you have to account for both good and bad dice, because good dice mean you took the territory, and bad dice means you lost more than you strafed. The Allies might be able to push in faster since Germany might be less willing to strafe with regular dice.
-
@Bean:
With regular dice, you MUST calculate the possible results of bad dice.
This is overexaggerated. You use actually just about the same method of estimation by counting dice punch and unit count. Doesn’t matter in LL or regular dice, you still attack 1 inf with 2 inf 1 fig, etc. If you try to “make up” for bad dice by adding more forces, you will lose in the long run because you’re on average spending more than you need to.
The huge difference is in strafing. With regular dice you have to account for both good and bad dice, because good dice mean you took the territory, and bad dice means you lost more than you strafed. The Allies might be able to push in faster since Germany might be less willing to strafe with regular dice.
So you really see no difference between regular dice and low luck with, say, a R1 invasion of Ukraine using 2 tanks?
(edit) - for those not familiar with this line, it is 3 inf 1 art 1 tank from Caucasus plus 1 tank from Russia plus the 2 Russian fighters, for total attacking force 3 inf 1 art 2 tank 2 fighter, with the remainder of available Russian forces attacking West Russia. Veteran players will probably be familiar with the fact that the Ukr-West Russia attack typically uses THREE tanks rather than TWO - but then, veteran players of that caliber should be familiar with the reasons of why that is the case. For those veteran players that are unfamiliar with the ramifications of Low Luck, as well as the uninitiated, then - (/edit)
Using Frood’s calculator for reference (note that I do my OWN calculations, but for anyone that may doubt my subjectivity) -
Regular dice:
13.69% all attackers die
6.1% 1 Russian fighter survives
11.29% 2 Russian fighters survive
68.92% 2 Russian fighters plus at least 1 Russian tank surviveLow Luck:
11.1% 2 Russian fighters survive
88.9% 2 Russian fighters plus at least 1 Russian tank survive–
Under regular luck, then, you obtain UNACCEPTABLE losses about 20% of the time (losing a Russian fighter on the attack), and another 11% of the time, you fail to take Ukraine, which allows some rather unpleasant German counterattacks.
Aggregate, about 31% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will “fail” the Russian goal. About 20% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will actually be QUITE bad for Russia (losing 1-2 fighters).
–
Under Low Luck, you NEVER obtain UNACCEPTABLE losses (you CANNOT lose a Russian fighter under the Low Luck attack). About 11% of the time, you fail to take Ukraine, which allows some rather unpleasant German counterattacks.
Aggregate, about 11% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will “fail” the Russian goal. However, the Russian attack on Ukraine can NEVER be QUITE bad for Russia, as Russia’s fighters are never at risk.
–
Conclusion: Games with regular dice and games with low-luck are DRASTICALLY different. It is impossible to conclude otherwise given the evidence.
-
Under Low Luck, you NEVER obtain UNACCEPTABLE losses (you CANNOT lose a Russian fighter under the Low Luck attack). About 11% of the time, you fail to take Ukraine, which allows some rather unpleasant German counterattacks.
Aggregate, about 11% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will “fail” the Russian goal. However, the Russian attack on Ukraine can NEVER be QUITE bad for Russia, as Russia’s fighters are never at risk.
Good job, you analyzed half of the problem. Now for the other half? That % do you overkill and take with overwhelming units? I do doubt your subjectivity if all you do is look at the bad part of the dice.
All I have to say is that in low luck you never obtain low to no losses, and suddenly your point isn’t as shiny as it looks in all its capitals.
-
LL and ADS are two completely different games.
LL is an almost pure math game.
ADS is a far more fluid game that (in my opinion) is more contingent on the skill of the players at taking advantage of changes and shifts openings due to good/bad dice than in someone knowing based on over-use of simulators that in 3 turns I can have X, Y, Z forces in this territory.
LL created players like Agent Smith. That in itself is enough to make me forever swear off LL.
-
LL created players like Agent Smith. That in itself is enough to make me forever swear off LL.
Rofl!
than in someone knowing based on over-use of simulators that in 3 turns I can have X, Y, Z forces in this territory.
True, but there is variation in LL as well.
more contingent on the skill of the players at taking advantage of changes and shifts openings due
I think here however that it’s very hard to tell skill when the dice go badly. There’s just not a whole lot you can do to shift your strategy if you lost 9 infantry in W. Russia or if the AA gun shot down 6 fighters, you’re just wishing that the opponent makes a mistake or you might take more risks to try to even it out.
-
True Bean, when the dice go 6 or 7 standard deviations from norm, then it does indeed come down to a dice game. And if those dice go against you, then you are probably in for a loss.
But such massive dice extremes are rather rare. It is the individual battles, and the “+/- 1 INF over expected results” that can create cumulative benefit if played well.
ADS requires that players be able to adjust and adapt more than LL does.
And again, in my personal opinion, the player that can adapt throughout the game is a FAR superior gamer to the one that relies completely on mathematical certainties.
Lastly, remember, victory for the US at Midway was due to “Point Luck”
:mrgreen: -
But such massive dice extremes are rather rare.
Hah, every game I peek into seems like someone is whining about massively bad dice. I suppose if you count the number of battles rolled over a game, one of them pretty much will deviate badly…
Plus, how do you adjust to cumulatively bad dice? If you get nickle and dimed to death, there’s just not much to adjust to except overspend men, which in itself isn’t a good idea.
But in any case, I do agree ADS takes more balls simply because strafing is much more tricky.
-
There is always ONE freaky battle, and sometime you also get slightly bad dice all game long.
The answer is you LOSE a few of those.
But to win consistently, you beat your opponents despite the dice.
1 or 2 in 10 loses (and wins) are dice caused.
It is the games in the middle that separate the good players from the bad.
-
There will alwayes be dice whiners, just ignore them, u dont lose in life, because u dident hit the right number, but u lose in life if u whine about it :-D
-
OK, Low Luck vs regular dice do have different consequences and sometimes need different decisions.
… Back to original topic… how 1J counters 1UK explosion…
If Japan has left alone the Buryat RU and sent the northern fleet to Pearl Harbor.
THEN US can attack sz60 (East of Japan) with bmb ftr and land in Buryat.
Against 4tra: 50% to sink them all.
Against 3tra: 76% to sink them all.
Without transports (or even with 1) Japan cannot punish back Buryat, and is strategically helpless for 2 more turns… so VERY bad ! Possibly a Game Over ?So it’s either a serious escort for transports kept in sz60, or build in sz61 only (West of Japan) - that cannot liberate, say, an UK-raided Borneo in one turn…
-
@Bean:
Under Low Luck, you NEVER obtain UNACCEPTABLE losses (you CANNOT lose a Russian fighter under the Low Luck attack). About 11% of the time, you fail to take Ukraine, which allows some rather unpleasant German counterattacks.
Aggregate, about 11% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will “fail” the Russian goal. However, the Russian attack on Ukraine can NEVER be QUITE bad for Russia, as Russia’s fighters are never at risk.
Good job, you analyzed half of the problem. Now for the other half? That % do you overkill and take with overwhelming units? I do doubt your subjectivity if all you do is look at the bad part of the dice.
Usually, beating the crap out of your opponent is not viewed as a problem. The fact that you see winning as a potential problem makes me wonder if you have deep-seated psychological issues. Or maybe I have deep-seated psychological issues . . .
All I have to say is that in low luck you never obtain low to no losses, and suddenly your point isn’t as shiny as it looks in all its capitals.
If that made any sense to me, I would try to respond to it. However, I am totally left in the dark as to what you could mean by “in low luck you never obtain low to no losses, and suddenly (my) point isn’t as shiny”, Bean. I think my point is still SUPER shiny.
… Back to original topic… how 1J counters 1UK explosion…
If Japan has left alone the Buryat RU and sent the northern fleet to Pearl Harbor.
THEN US can attack sz60 (East of Japan) with bmb ftr and land in Buryat.
Against 4tra: 50% to sink them all.
Against 3tra: 76% to sink them all.
Without transports (or even with 1) Japan cannot punish back Buryat, and is strategically helpless for 2 more turns… so VERY bad ! Possibly a Game Over ?So it’s either a serious escort for transports kept in sz60, or build in sz61 only (West of Japan) - that cannot liberate, say, an UK-raided Borneo in one turn…
Yes, quite right Magister. However, a few points -
“A serious escort” - you’ll see this when Japan attacks Pearl with sub, destroyer, 3-5 fighters, and bomber. The Japanese battleship east of Japan stays east of Japan to protect any newly built transports. I opt for this option a lot.
“West of Japan” - this is not necessarily true. Japan may be able to kill the UK navy in the Indian/Pacific on J1, and if UK does not have air in range of the Pacific (happens maybe a third to two thirds of the time), then Japan can move its transport east of Japan to French Indochina (or Kwangtung), ready to liberate Borneo on J2. (The transport east of Japan can even liberate Borneo as early as J1). Correct, the newly built transports may not be able to retake Borneo on J2, but the one already produced probably can.
-
Newpaintbrush: It’s impossible to “kill ALL the UK navy” when it’s a lot of scattered ships, often standing it the way of cleaning actions. True, it may be not a vital threat early (so ignored for more urgent JA actions), but still a lone JA transport to Borneo cannot survive with them around. Later when JA are ready to clean them, they may run away just before that…
Thanks for the tip - right, the initial transport can go to Kwantung or Indochina with the south fleet, moving some troops along too - if it isn’t needed as cannon fodder (In case of the UK-fighter-landing-on-US-Pearl-carrier variant).
I’m also thinking if in such a situation JA can take out Pearl (with solid remaining fleet - the famous btl des car 2ftr) AND Buryat, and leave China alone on Turn 1. How bad can that be ? Will US reunite in China, or advance 1inf to vacated territories, or even attack with 2inf 1ftr ? Can this incite the building of a Sinkiang factory with even more stalling potential ?
So - with China intact, does Indochina need to stay with a solid JA garrison ? (I figure 3 inf at least).Then the arty bid - if trying that - is better in Manchuria (choosing Bury/China) not Indochina (choosing China/India). In this case British from India may get cheeky… Of course a tank bid in Kwantung can choose all 3.
Despite some advantages, I still don’t like the “light” Pearl where the battleship does nothing or a minor shore support, instead of adding its good firepower and saving at least a fighter with its first free hit. Then any ships sent to Pearl are marked for sure death, right ? or survivors may be protected only by the counterattack threat from East Japan ?
-
Yet another variant: Jennifer’s 2 IPC left to Japan to build 4tra. Existing tra lands in Buryat so ends in sz60.
Then 5tra in sz60 (and without Buryat for landing US bmr ftr) are a solid (?) deterrence against UK des sub. Herd of buffaloes keeping lion at distance ?Pearl: btl des car bmb 2ftr
Buryat: 3inf 1tnk 3ftr
China: 5inf 1arty 1ftrBut 6 IPC for Japan of the 9 bid is already much… still GE 1inf in Libya is useful.
Suggested Topics
