LL v ADS

[DarthMaximus]

@axis_roll:

KEY QUESTION: Do you go another round?  inf, 5 arm versus 2 inf.  Tough one.
I can definitely see 5 tanks getting 2 hits.  Ouch.  Tanks vulnerable to counter.

Or do you take the +1 unit count and w/d?

Yep, it would be a one round try in this case.  You take your shot and get out.

[Jennifer]

No the biggest difference is that there are no more medium battles.  Only very small, or very large.

6 defending infantry will always get two hits.  If you hit them with 3 infantry, artillery, 4 fighters you will always get 3 hits and be able to retreat with infantry, artillery, 4 fighters thus never jeapordizing fighters and always coming out ahead.

It’s a completely different rule, thus it is a completely different game.  LHTR is not the same game as OOB.  LL is not the same game as ADS.

If you use ADS tactics in LL (right down to the territory trade level) you will lose almost every game.

If you use LL tactics in ADS (right down to the territory trade level) you will lose almost every game.

[trihero]

OK, to specifics again.  In my example of the 5 inf picket in Kar, Bel and Ukr…. the Russians have huge numbers just like your Germans did in EEU… Those three territories are dead zoned.  You CAN NOT move into one HARD as you point out.  That’s part of the point of actually throwing out the 5 inf picket fence.  Expensive trading areas.

Again your example is incomplete and bad. If the Russians have enough inf such that they can throw 15 of them into dead zones and still be able to kill a German stack if it advances heavily, then the Germans have already lost anyways. I don’t see how Russia could be missing that much inf and still kill a complete German stack move-in. I would like I say throw 3 inf + 5-6 figs + 1 bomb to one stack, which I don’t even care if I take it’s simply trading 3 inf for 5 inf, then I move completely into the other stack, Russia is missing 15 infantry with which to counterattack me. 10 are dead, and 5 are far away in some other zone, unable to reach the one I just moved into. If Russia can still attack me and win without heavy casualties, then I did something wrong somewhere else, not with the attacks, which aren’t even strafes at this point.

[Jennifer]

It’s probably better to use that in reverse.

If GERMANY has 5 Infantry in Karelia, Belorussia and Ukraine as a picket then it becomes exceptionally costly for Russia to take them.

[trihero]

@Cmdr:

In LL, I don’t think any gambit would work unless your opponent doesn’t know how to calculate the correct punch to get the victory conditions s/he wants.

Thus, every action by Germany needs to be done with the knowledge aforethought that the allies will be able to hit you with just enough punch to win what they want.  There will be no need for the allies to worry that your transport will hit in defense of the SZ 14 fleet, since your combined punch is 5.  That means 2 fighters/bomber will get at least one hit (probably two hits) and the defender can get no more then one hit in the first round of battle OR the second round of battle.  Thus, it is impossible for the attacker to lose both fighters and the bomber.  Where-as in ADS, there’s at least hope that the transport will hit and the battleship will hit. A pretty decent chance of both hitting, actually (11%).

That’s what I mean when it’s a DIFFERENT GAME.  Which is what I’ve been saying the WHOLE time.  (And evidentially getting bad karma from people LIKE you for saying.)  It is a different game.  It’s as different as LHTR 1.3 is to AAR-OOB or LHTR 2.0 is to LHTR 1.3.

Jennifer, you’re backpedaling and I’m not even sure what you’re saying anymore. I think previously the impression I got from you was that LL is not just a different game, but a completely/significantly different game that has no value in diagnosing strategy. Now you’re backpedaling to “it’s just different.” Where are you at now?

It’s very similar to how you backpedaled on your KJF strategy by saying first it’s better than KGF, to it’s viable, to “well, Germany has to kill Russia in a KJF.” You start with something you can’t prove, then jump back to something beyond obvious in order to save face.

[Jennifer]

Your original impression was not far off.

IT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME.  It has different rules.  It has different tactics.  The only similarities are the movements, the costs, the models and the map.

You cannot really use LL for strategy building in ADS because you cannot run an ADS game under the same results most times.  ADS has a lot of flux.  Defenders can get 80% hits.  Attackers with punch in the hundreds can totally miss.  And there is only a 67% chance that an infantry + 4 fighters is going to kill two defending infantry and NOT lose a fighter.

That means most people are going to bring two attacking infantry.  And thus, you have completely changed the buying process, the building process, the positioning of units, and the use of units to CYA in regards to the dice.

That’s even MORE true in large battles where one bad round in ADS kills you.  One good round in ADS saves you. (Odds of good and bad are equal, so it’s not so much getting lucky as it is just normal dice fracks.)

Not a concern in LL.  Because LL is a different animal all together.  You know that if you attack with 100 Infantry and 100 Armor you will beat 200 defending infantry.  Not so true in ADS.  You could get really nailed!  (maybe instead of 17 hits with your attacking infantry you get 3?  What if the defender gets 80 hits instead of 67 in round 1?)

[trihero]

You cannot really use LL for strategy building in ADS because you cannot run an ADS game under the same results most times.  ADS has a lot of flux.  Defenders can get 80% hits.  Attackers with punch in the hundreds can totally miss.  And there is only a 67% chance that an infantry + 4 fighters is going to kill two defending infantry and NOT lose a fighter.

Err…didn’t we just discuss this? 11% to lose a fighter, not 33%.

And I’m very aware that ADS fluxes, but it fluxes both ways. It still averages out for the vast majority and for the most imporant battles to the same result, and even in the ones in which it is different such as 100% trading precision, it does not clearly favor one side since either side can build artillery or use fighters. Hence why I do not think it is a comletely, significantly different game to the point where it’s absolutely useless for looking at strategy. Did I miss any nuances?

You could get really nailed!  (maybe instead of 17 hits with your attacking infantry you get 3?  What if the defender gets 80 hits instead of 67 in round 1?)

Every time I hear an argument like this my head implodes. You have to balance it out by the fact that you could also with the exact same frequency, hit a massive windfall in that battle. It’s a bell curve. It’s symmetric on both sides. There’s no point in saying that “oh, well the bad part could happen” because I immediately respond “well, the good part could happen” and we’re back to ground zero.

[Lucifer]

I can’t bring much more arguments then I already have done. My “feelings” when I play is not much different from
LL to ADS.
Other factors and issues are much more important to me than if it’s LL or ADS.
Multiplayer or 1vs1, tech, bid rules, strats, and the most important one is the skill level of my opponent.

Maybe I have the same relationship to tech that many ADS players see LL games. There are no gamebreaking
techs, but still I’m not used to it, and would need several tech games to get the confidence of when to roll, with
what country etc.

I guess we have different perception to A&A on different levels, Jennifer.
I don’t see any point in trying to convince you that my perception is the rightest one.

[axis_roll]

@Bean:

OK, to specifics again.  In my example of the 5 inf picket in Kar, Bel and Ukr…. the Russians have huge numbers just like your Germans did in EEU… Those three territories are dead zoned.  You CAN NOT move into one HARD as you point out.  That’s part of the point of actually throwing out the 5 inf picket fence.  Expensive trading areas.

Again your example is incomplete and bad. If the Russians have enough inf such that they can throw 15 of them into dead zones and still be able to kill a German stack if it advances heavily, then the Germans have already lost anyways. I don’t see how Russia could be missing that much inf and still kill a complete German stack move-in. I would like I say throw 3 inf + 5-6 figs + 1 bomb to one stack, which I don’t even care if I take it’s simply trading 3 inf for 5 inf, then I move completely into the other stack, Russia is missing 15 infantry with which to counterattack me. 10 are dead, and 5 are far away in some other zone, unable to reach the one I just moved into. If Russia can still attack me and win without heavy casualties, then I did something wrong somewhere else, not with the attacks, which aren’t even strafes at this point.

Who said that all 5 stacks were Russian infantry?

You mentioned major German stacks in this thread of 30 inf 7 arm in E. Europe.  I think UK, US and USSR might have a spare 5 inf each to use as bait as I have proposed.  These size numbers indicate a game that is several rounds old (8+).

I have seen a said dead zone situation as described above (Russia has enough units to whack a moved in EEU stack into Kar/bel/ukr).  It’s really not THAT out of the realm of possibility.

Does this happen every game?  No.  Would I utilize this tactic all the time?  No.

My key point is that this tactic I have described is effective under the right circumstances. However under LL, you can not utilize this tactic, so in this sense LL alters the game as compared to ADS.

I will say often times, as the allies, an effective move is to give the axis many options, and force them to choose the right ones as well as win all those options choosen.  This is more effective in ADS than it is in LL due to the guarentees offered in LL.

I think we’ve beaten this dead horse enough Bean.  If you can not see my points as described above, my fingers are tired of trying to explain it any further.

[trihero]

I see your point that you cannot bait ever at all in LL, and you are absolutely 100% correct about this. In fact, this is what I have been saying from a a few months about LL that strafing is too precise is the main difference between LL and ADS. I know that. And you know it too.

But do you see my point that you can still strafe in ADS? It’s a very subtle difference we’re talking about now. We don’t have to be in contradiction since we’re talking about different things - you say baiting doesn’t work in LL (true) I say you can still strafe in ADS (also true). I’m not saying you have the same precision in ADS obviously, but you can still find the numbers to make it at least slightly favorable. Like Darth said, switching from ADS to LL does not suddenly make strafing invalid due to doubt of taking the territory. You can modify your attack to have a small chance of taking the territory. There is a point at which the risk is small enough that the gains are still worth it.

If you send too much offense, you take the territory too often, which is bad. If you send too little offense, you do not deal enough damage compared to the losses you take, which is also bad. But there has to be something in between in which you do not have a significant chance of taking the territory (5-10%), yet still are dealing more damage than you take (1:1 at worst). Do you acknowledge this? Maybe I have not been making myself clear until this point, but now do you understand what I am saying? There’s no need for all of this frustration between us. I say strafing is still an option in ADS. You say it’s not as great of an option as in LL. We are in agreement, or at least we are not in disagreement, aren’t we?

[axis_roll]

@Bean:

I see your point that you cannot bait ever at all in LL, and you are absolutely 100% correct about this. In fact, this is what I have been saying from a a few months about LL that strafing is too precise is the main difference between LL and ADS. I know that. And you know it too.

But do you see my point that you can still strafe in ADS? It’s a very subtle difference we’re talking about now. We don’t have to be in contradiction since we’re talking about different things - you say baiting doesn’t work in LL (true) I say you can still strafe in ADS (also true). I’m not saying you have the same precision in ADS obviously, but you can still find the numbers to make it at least slightly favorable. Like Darth said, switching from ADS to LL does not suddenly make strafing invalid due to doubt of taking the territory. You can modify your attack to have a small chance of taking the territory. There is a point at which the risk is small enough that the gains are still worth it.

If you send too much offense, you take the territory too often, which is bad. If you send too little offense, you do not deal enough damage compared to the losses you take, which is also bad. But there has to be something in between in which you do not have a significant chance of taking the territory (5-10%), yet still are dealing more damage than you take (1:1 at worst). Do you acknowledge this? Maybe I have not been making myself clear until this point, but now do you understand what I am saying? There’s no need for all of this frustration between us. I say strafing is still an option in ADS. You say it’s not as great of an option as in LL. We are in agreement, or at least we are not in disagreement, aren’t we?

Of course you can straffe in ADS.  I don’t think I said you never could, just that it wasn’t a slam dunk like it is in LL.  There’s just more risk.  So to lessen the risk, you lessen your effectiveness… sometimes even to the point of less than the 1:1 of which you speak.  Since it’s usually a one round of battle and w/d, you never know with such small numbers.  I’m sure the favorable outcomes happen as often as the unfavorable ones…

or do they?  Only ADS knows :)

And to a great extent I agree we’re really not in much of a disgreement.

[Crazy Ivan]

:roll:
My my, aren’t we all in a dither!
LL is for tacticians and ADS is for luckticians  :-P.
And that is all I have to say about that.
        :-o

[axis_roll]

@Crazy:

And that is all I have to say about that.
         :-o

Thank You Forrest Gump

[Sir Doodlebug]

Interesting thread!

I’ve never understood why people play LL, I think it does take the fun out of the game. I like the extreme dice rolls when they happen, even if I’m on the bad end of one. Surely no one could argue that chance plays no part in war, there are plenty of things that chance is supposed to represent: morale, weather, intelligence, training, supplies, experience etc. And if LL makes no difference to the outcome of the whole game, as some seem to suggest, then why bother?

If you want a game with no chance, play chess. I prefer to fear the dice.

[Guest]

Thank you Craig.  That divergence is the critical reason why LL is not viable as a strat test platform.

[trihero]

You would still have to admit that low luck helps you understand when it does not diverge significantly, so that you know what you are doing in the long run works.

Or even given a divergence, then you are still basically using low luck theory to figure out how to respond to it. You’re not exactly waiting for the dice to diverge again, you’re thinking about how to change your strategy.

Not to mention, there are some divergent battles in LL such as the Baltic attack, Russian Triple, etc.

[trihero]

No one is saying that they aren’t different. Saying they are different would be as asinine  as saying the sun is hot. The question is whether they are different enough to be completely incomparable to each other in all respects. I think LL is very good to show you if you have a shot at the late game. If you get a couple divergent dice throws in ADS, you are either lead to believe your original strategy was crap and stop trying it even though it rocks with average/normal dice, or you are lead to believe your original strategy was awesome when it really sucks.

[Lucifer]

Some tactics and strats may differ from ADS or LL, but still I think most strats and the crucial factors are valid
both for ADS and LL.
The German navy strat could possibly be a tactic which might work in ADS, because of the overkill needed,
this could mean that the fleet will last one, maybe even 2 rnds more than in LL.
As for KJF or KGF, LL or ADS have absolutely no impact of weather the KJF is as good as KGF. And for the balanced strat, switching to Asia midgame, LL or ADS have no impact here either.

Another issue which is a distinct difference from ADS to LL, if you play against someone who is very good then
ADS or LL makes it kind of “another game”. As much as I hate to admit it, this is difference that matters imo.
When discussing different strats and tactics, my experience in revised is both LL and ADS, so that’s why I
see things the way I see it, the most important factors are the same in my eyes, even if not other players agree.
You need fleet protection, inf are good for defending etc, most general issues are the same both in LL and ADS.

The difference from LL to ADS which I can admit to some degree, that makes it “another game”, is when playing
against someone who is a much better player.
In 1vs1 games with LL setting, if you are not a top player, but a newb like me, if you then play against the best
LL players then you have a much lesser chance of winning than if it is an ADS game. This is a huge difference.
I can win against anyone I think, I have not yet played a game with ADS in which an opponent seemed
unbeatable for me. As Switch pointed out, maybe 20% of all ADS games is decided by the dice. This can be both
1% or 100% if 2 players are very equal, or they are not on the same level, then good luck cannot save the allies player if he loses London and make other big mistakes i.e.
So in the context of winning or losing against some other player, then LL makes it another game yes.

[Lucifer]

@Sir:

Interesting thread!

I’ve never understood why people play LL, I think it does take the fun out of the game.

You are right about that, in some situations imo.
I wish there was only one set of rules, would be much easier. About LL or ADS, some players are not
fun to play against with LL. With ADS anyone can possibly beat any opponent, in a single game.
Some of the different opinions on this matter is that, as a LL player I will not want to lose against
a player who’s not playing better than me. As an ADS player I would like to have the possibility to
beat anyone, even if an opponent beat me 8-9 out of 10 games. So this is why different players choose to
play with different rules I guess.

[axis_roll]

@Lucifer:

Some of the different opinions on this matter is that, as a LL player I will not want to lose against
a player who’s not playing better than me. As an ADS player I would like to have the possibility to
beat anyone, even if an opponent beat me 8-9 out of 10 games. So this is why different players choose to play with different rules I guess.

So bad players who can only win with good dice play ADS?  And only the ‘better’ play always wins in LL?

That is how I interpret your post.  It’s not plainly stated, but it certainly is implied if not written between the lines.