LL v ADS

[Guest]

Jen, the problem with your cost analysis is pretty simple…
It assumes only 1 round of combat (which in LL is a definite fallacy since the BEST you can hope for is 1 hit.

In round 2, the attack w/ 1 INF, 1 ART is down to a punch of 2 w/ loss of 1 unit
In round 2, the attack w/ 1 INF, 1 ARM still has a punch of 3 w/ loss of 1 unit.

Now take this out of the theoretical compare of a 2 unit battle and add stacks.

With INF screen, the attacker punch remains higher, despite losses, with INF/ARM than it does INF/ART.
AND IN LOW LUCK MAINTAINING PUNCH IS EVEN MORE CRITICAL THAN IN ADS!

(and we do agree that determining battle costs in LL is FAR easier in LL than in ADS… the larger the battle, the easier)

[Jennifer]

I’m only using 1 round as an example.  Since we cannot say for 100% certain what units will be attacking, what units will be defending, what partials will be hits and what partials will be misses, it is irresponsible to assume there will be a round 2 in any given battle.

However, we can safely assume there is a round 1, because without it, there’s no dice for either ADS or LL.

And in one round of battle, it is clearly advantageous for the attacker to use Inf + Art vs Inf + Arm because the cost is less.  (Not to mention the results are hopelessly skewed anyway given the extra 12-15% chance to hit [depends on if Arm or Art is used.])

[trihero]

And in one round of battle, it is clearly advantageous for the attacker to use Inf + Art vs Inf + Arm because the cost is less.  (Not to mention the results are hopelessly skewed anyway given the extra 12-15% chance to hit [depends on if Arm or Art is used.])

I hope you realize this is true in ADS as well as LL….

I don’t know why you’re making such a big fuss about artillery - did you just realize they are cheaper and offer the same punch as arm does? The first time I introduced my friend to this game he immediately understood that 2 rolls at 2 is the same as 1 at 1 + 1 at 3. That holds equally true in ADS as LL, except when you’re fighting 1 unit.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

12% is very significant in this game.  If you don’t believe that, just collect 88% of your income for the entire game, let’s see who wins.

I don’t care much if I buy inf+art or inf+arm, as long as I fill up my trans. I will always buy mostly inf anyway.
If you let me (axis) have Afr, I can buy only inf+art and/or ftrs, and no tanks if you want to.
If you (allies) build everything in WUS and use all against
Jap I can play an entire game and not buy any tanks. What about combining these 2 options?

You have said that it is important to contain Germany first. I certainly agree  :-D
I also think this strat/tactic is equally important regardless of LL or ADS.
Do you disagree with that argument?
You still have not refuted my claims, strats and general playing skill are more important than the LL or ADS option.

[trihero]

@Cmdr:

And I’m saying it’s easier to kill X number of units for Y cost and have the results pre-determined in LL then in ADS and thus, it fails to be a valid testing tool for strategies that will be used in ADS.

If you want to test LL strategies in LL mode, then that’s perfectly valid.  But when you change 55% hit ratios with 67% hit ratios, you cannot call it the same game.  12% is very significant in this game.  If you don’t believe that, just collect 88% of your income for the entire game, let’s see who wins.

You wish it were predetermined. Like I pointed out correctly earlier and which you conveniently ignored, there is a huge variation in battles still. 2 figs 1 bom vs Baltic fleet ranges from all UK airforce dying to all UK airforce surviving - and this is LL. Ukraine varies from 2 arm surviving to 3 arm 1 art. Belorussia ranges from clearing to taking with 2 inf. China ranges from 1 loss to 3 losses. Pearl ranges from no damage to losing 2 pieces besides the battleship. Sending a bomb vs a transport still varies as widely as ADS. There are still 20% capital fights. So what’s the big hullabaloo about LL being a completely different game? It isn’t. It has a few differences, but by and large it simply attenuates all the stupid dice so you can take a look at your strategy. It may not be a fun way of playing, it may not be a superior way of playing, but you can say that every LL game shows how good of a strategist you are in the long run, since no battles go ridiculously awry.

The only time in which you are correct is 1 inf 1 art vs 1 inf. In LL, yes the hit rate is higher compared to ADS. But how does that fundamentally change the game? Does that make that attack bad in ADS? No. Does it mean the best way to trade territories is to throw 1inf 1art against 1 inf? No. You still use fighters when you can which is by and large sufficient. You make a very very bad analogy when you say collecting 88% of your income; you enlarge those couple battles into something that doesn’t make any sense.

Artillery are still as cost efficient in ADS compared to LL - they’re just not quite as good at taking out lone infantry, but they are the same worth in bigger battles.

And even if you think artillery is the flagship of LL - then you should beat me in our LL game, since I’m not building any artillery or any subs. If you complain that I’m abusing the certainty of trading territories with planes - then I simply reply you can do the same with all those Allied figs, and that I have had bad luck so far in trading anyways.

LL is not the same as ADS, but it is only to your detriment to think that they are apples and oranges, and to hide behind good and bad dice by saying the former is good strategy and the latter as fate against you.

[tekkyy]

Yeah in small battles LL is the similar/same to ADS.

But small battles are mostly from trading right?
These tend to involve air units right?

So I feel LL is different from ADS for both large and small battles.

[Lucifer]

@tekkyy:

So I feel LL is different from ADS for both large and small battles.

Your feeling is right, LL and ADS is different, the variation of the outcome of battles are different.
This doesn’t make it another game though. As for my arguments that strats and skills are more important,
skills or strats doesn’t make it another game either. It is the same game if you play against someone who let you
take Berlin in rnd 4, it’s the same game with or without KJF or whatever strats are being used.
It’s the same game if you play with tech and your opponent builds all bmrs and rolls for heavy bombers.
All games are different, even with same strats and even same opponents. And also every LL game is different
even if the variation is less than ADS. A&A is the same game whatever rules are being used.
Good players will win more often than others regardless of LL, ADS, tech, NA’s.

[axis_roll]

@Lucifer:

You still have not refuted my claims, strats and general playing skill are more important than the LL or ADS option.

Just because something is listed as thrid most important doesn’t mean it doesn’t make a difference.

If, in both ADS and LL Strats and general playing ability are the most important two factors, we can eliminate them as a discussion when comparing the two (ADS and LL).

That makes ADS vs LL the most important DIFFENCE in the game (strats and general playing ability being the same importance).

To my point earlier.  ADS is not Equal to LL.  Is it better or worse?
Personal preference.

Can’t we all get along?… it IS the Holiday season.

[axis_roll]

OK, How about we get more quantitative with the differences between LL and ADS (instead of feelings and preferences)

LL guarentees outcomes.  Specified unit hits can be computed and these numbers utilized to one sides advantage.  Since the Axis have more units to start (and hence can add the extra inf/art to get that guarenteed hit).  IMHO, LL helps the axis more than the allies early in the game.

LL affects important opening fire shots.  Offshores (especially with combined arms) can be computed and guarenteed.  Not sure who this helps more, probably the allies since the US really has the resources to invest in DD’s and roll for Combined arms tech.

LL minimizes wild outcomes.  I know when attacking with 3 inf and an art that I will get one and only 1 hit.  In ADS, I COULD get 4 hits.  Does this help one side?  probably not.

But the biggest difference LL is the guarenteed hit and run.  IMHO, this defintely helps the axis, specifically Germany and she turtles up and waits for Japan to win the game.  Keeping the allies at bay one or two rounds can defintely affect a games outcome.

[Lucifer]

Am I  the only player who thinks LL or ADS is not a big difference? I use both, although most players in the lobby
use LL, specially the 1vs1 games.
I started playing revised earlier this year in the lobby, I played mostly multiplayer,
and the majority of all games I participated in until couple of months ago,  was ADS and multiplayer. 
I also played classic many years ago, we did not start with LL.
As for what is best, if anyone prefer ADS thats what they should play, obviously. Same goes for LL players.
And there are several good players (believe it or not) who plays both multiplayer and 1vs1, and sometimes
they play with LL other games they use ADS.
Imo ADS is preferable in 2vs2 or 2vs3. LL doesn’t feel right in multiplayer for some strange reason.
Another issue is that it is the ADS players who claim LL is a different game, not LL players  :-P
I learned to play classic with ADS, I also learned to play revised with ADS.
Those strats that I prefer, I have tried first in ADS…. those strats I don’t use, they failed me in ADS games  :-o

[Lucifer]

@axis_roll:

But the biggest difference LL is the guarenteed hit and run.  IMHO, this defintely helps the axis, specifically Germany and she turtles up and waits for Japan to win the game.  Keeping the allies at bay one or two rounds can defintely affect a games outcome.

Generally, with somewhat equal experienced players, it’s almost always Japan who takes Moscow, not Germany.
This is not different in LL or ADS.
What is the big difference in the option of strafing when it’s not much used in many LL games?
This thread is not about the balance of the game, but isn’t a bid or no bid, more important than LL or ADS?
Seriously, I cannot see much difference between ADS and LL.

[trihero]

I agree with Lucifer, it’s not a very different game. Even though you can strafe precisely, I do not really see how this helps Germany that much. Even in ADS you shouldn’t be putting units in a vulnerable position to be strafed. You do not throw 4 inf 4 arm in Karelia when there’s a huge stack of 30 inf 7 arm in E. Europe. Just because the Germans can’t precisely strafe it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t or that you should be advancing units into a deadzone like that.

[Jennifer]

I play both, LL and ADS.  And there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in strategies employed between them.

And no, Bean, 1@1 + 1@3 is NOT the same as 2@2.  Check the math.  In LL they are identical, but in ADS they are not.  You have 3% better chance with 1@1 + 1@3 to score hits then 2@2 in ADS.  Multiply that out across 30-40 individual baby battles and you can see a major shift.

Sure, you can attempt to lock us into looking at one, and only one, individual battle.  But that’s only indicative of ONE battle!  Over the course of the game you might have hundreds of battles, all skewed ever so slightly by LL resulting in a game so totally off base as to be un-usable for diagnostic purposes in ADS.

I’m not saying LL isn’t fun.  I’m just saying you can’t really use LL to work out good strategies in ADS (or vice-versa, for that matter.)

[DarthMaximus]

@Bean:

I agree with Lucifer, it’s not a very different game. Even though you can strafe precisely, I do not really see how this helps Germany that much. Even in ADS you shouldn’t be putting units in a vulnerable position to be strafed. You do not throw 4 inf 4 arm in Karelia when there’s a huge stack of 30 inf 7 arm in E. Europe. Just because the Germans can’t precisely strafe it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t or that you should be advancing units into a deadzone like that.

Exactly.

[trihero]

And no, Bean, 1@1 + 1@3 is NOT the same as 2@2.  Check the math.  In LL they are identical, but in ADS they are not.  You have 3% better chance with 1@1 + 1@3 to score hits then 2@2 in ADS.  Multiply that out across 30-40 individual baby battles and you can see a major shift.

I already showed you the math. Let’s make it easy, 1@4 compared to 2@2.

1@4 is 66% chance to hit once, 33% to miss. (one round of battle) (low luck)

2@2 is 44% chance to miss (2/3 x 2/3), 11% to hit twice (1/3 x 1/3), and 44% to hit once. (ADS)

So in ADS, you have an 11% chance more to miss, but you have an 11% chance to hit twice. Those average out to one hit over many battles. I already showed you this once. I hope this isn’t a repeat of our previous arguments where I have already shown you the answer, yet you come back with erroneous information.

You need to check your facts once again, Jen. I agree that if you’re fighting a single unit that LL makes the inf/artillery combo more likely to hit one unit, but that does not fundamentally alter anything. You should still use planes if you have them, and in ADS you should still take the odds since it’s over 50% to take the opposing unit in one strike.

[Jennifer]

You say my math is off, then go on to say I am right.

You have multiple personalities?

Inf+Art vs Inf in one round of battle, ADS = 56% Chance of killing the defender
Inf+Art vs Inf in one round of battle, LL    = 67% Chance of killing the defender

Inf+Arm vs Inf in one round of battle, ADS = 58% Chance of killing the defender
Inf+Arm vs Inf in one round of battle, LL    = 67% Chance of killing the defender

How are these the same in your reality?  In my reality 58 != 67.  Neither is 56 = 67.

This large shift spread over hundreds of battles during the course of a game CAN and most likely WILL skew the ultimate result.  Thus, one cannot use LL as a means to test strategies in ADS since they are fundamentally different games.

I’m not saying LL is worthless.  I’m just saying that LL is not appropriate for testing ADS strategies just like ADS isn’t appropriate for testing LL strategies.  (Mainly because battles are much easier to win in LL.)

[trihero]

I am saying you are right about one thing, but wrong about another. That is not split personality. You can be right about 1+1  = 2, but fail when you say 2+2 = 3. You are right about versus one unit, but you are wrong versus more than that. You were saying that 1@1 + 1@3 is not the same as 2@2, but they are exactly the same if there are 2 or more targets available.

You are right in the case of one round of battle. Good job gold star, you rediscovered the wheel. Again, so what? Did your fighters mysteriously disappear so that every battle you are using only artillery/inf? Are you always fighting one inf? The answer is a resounding no. You’re only talking about a minority of battles - and in ADS, you would still make the same attack because it is favorable, just with slightly lower results.

[Jennifer]

Maybe your fighters are busy elsewhere.

Anyway, are the odds of success the same if we multiple 10 fold?

Let’s see!

10 Inf + 10 Art has Attack Punch 40
10 Inf Defending has Defense Punch 20

In one round you have a 65% chance of hitting 7 defenders (9% chance to win in one round)

10 Inf + 10 Arm has Attack Punch 40
10 Inf Defending has Defense Punch 20

In one round you have a 68% chance of hitting 7 defenders (8% chance to win in one round)

In LL, regardless of Arm or Art, if you have 10 Inf + 10 Art (or Arm) you have Attack Punch 40
10 Inf Defending STILL has Defense Punch 20

In one round you have a 70% chance of hitting 7 defenders (0% to win in one round.)

As you can see, the microcosm holds true for the macro-scale.  The results are still way off from ADS in LL, thus, LL is NOT a good indicator of good tactics to use in ADS.  (And vice-versa.)

They are both fun games to play.  They are NOT the same.  The tactics are NOT the same.  ADS battles and LL battles don’t need the same force compliments.  LL only needs punch.  ADS needs units of strong punch individually to increase odds of hits.

I’d be just as happy to send inf/art into battle in LL as I would inf/fig if I could use the figs somewhere else and the territory is secure from counter attack. (ie you are liberating Archangelsk and England had just liberated karelia preventing Germany from attacking Archangelsk.)

[Infantry Rocks]

Being unable to strafe precisely may in fact mean that you should not strafe. Do to the reasons I mentions a profitable LL strafe may not be a profitable ADS strafe. A dead zone in LL may not be a dead zone in ADS.

[axis_roll]

@Bean:

I agree with Lucifer, it’s not a very different game. Even though you can strafe precisely, I do not really see how this helps Germany that much. Even in ADS you shouldn’t be putting units in a vulnerable position to be strafed. You do not throw 4 inf 4 arm in Karelia when there’s a huge stack of 30 inf 7 arm in E. Europe. Just because the Germans can’t precisely strafe it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t or that you should be advancing units into a deadzone like that.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.  In ADS, leaving a stack of 4 inf and 4 tanks can be a VERY GOOD strategic move at times. Especially for the Allies, especially against Germany.

For example, I might want to throw said Russian inf and tanks to bleed Germany dry while building my UK forces (since they attack Germany first).  Now would I put 4 Russian tanks at risk… probably not.  But your example is a poor one.  I may throw 6 inf and a tank in Ukraine for the purposes described above.  Consider Germany having to trade Ukaine, Balkans, and Belorussia with stacks described above.  In ADS, these stacks can be rather problematic.

Not a strategy for every round, but this is a strategy this is non-existant/poor in LL.