@krieghund Your answer and the FAQ are super helpful – thank you!
LL Challenge
-
Hmm, what’s up with the quoting system over here?
You can either hit the “quote” reply button (in upper right corner of message) or when replying you can scroll through the previous messages and hit “insert quote”. You can do this as many times as you like so you can splice the quote up or eliminate all the information that doesn’t correspond to your response.
-
Hmm, what’s up with the quoting system over here?
You can either hit the “quote” reply button (in upper right corner of message) or when replying you can scroll through the previous messages and hit “insert quote”. You can do this as many times as you like so you can splice the quote up or eliminate all the information that doesn’t correspond to your response.
Aha, got it, tnx for explaining and -@dezrtfish- editing that last post of mine.
-
I just re-read the original post and a thought occurred to me. Even if ADS strategies don’t work as well in LL, how does that make the LL system inherently inferior? If the argument is that LL changes the game by removing certain ADS strategies, isn’t it also possible that it could introduce strategies that wouldn’t work (or work as well) in ADS?
-
LL moves the game closer to chess, so yeah the strats change, but how can you be Patton if you know the outcome of your battles before you fight them? In ADS or… god forbid… a face to face game, you have to be able to recover from bad luck and you have to be able to capitalize on good luck.
-
@ncscswitch:
You know I almost moved to fayetteville a couple years ago, Youthfull ambitions and sweet black skater helmits…
I’d like to meet you over a board someday switch…
You tell me when you are coming to NC, and I’ll buy the Newcastle…
Your on. Ironic as I use my house key to open my second Newcastle of the night. Odd isn’t it , a Redneck beer-snob.
-
Owkey, I registered just to take up the challenge. LL really takes the greatest flaw out of this game.
@ cmdr Jennifer: I assume you mean 7 IPC starting units and 7 IPC income for the axis?
Battlemap is fine, but what’s In House Dicey? I’ve always been playing with DAAK dicey servers…Nope, just 7 IPC for units OR IPC.
And my position is that LL changes that game mechanics to such a degree it is no longer the same game. Kinda like Siamese Chess is not really the same as Chess.
Also, I don’t think that Germany stands a chance in 8 our of 10 games. (The other two being the luck portion of low luck.)
-
LL moves the game closer to chess, so yeah the strats change, but how can you be Patton if you know the outcome of your battles before you fight them? In ADS or… god forbid… a face to face game, you have to be able to recover from bad luck and you have to be able to capitalize on good luck.
Worse than that. LL allows you to take risks you otherwise would shy away from because you KNOW the worst that can happen to you after one round of battle is you are one units lower then you expected, at best you are one units up and your opponent is one unit down.
With that change alone I win almost every LL game I play. Why? Because I have no problem sending 6 bombers to attack your AA Gun, I’ll only lose one, I’ll never lose 5. Likewise, I know I can hit you with 6 Infantry, 24 tanks and get 13 hits every time. That means if you have 14 units present, I can always retreat 1 or 2 infantry and every last tank I have. In ADS that’s not going to be true necessarily. Maybe you get 7 or 8 hits in ADS? Maybe I screw up and get 14 or 15 hits taking the ground when I didnt want too?
-
@Cmdr:
Worse than that. LL allows you to take risks you otherwise would shy away from because you KNOW the worst that can happen to you after one round of battle is you are one units lower then you expected, at best you are one units up and your opponent is one unit down.
You would be surprised at how dicey LL games still are. It’s LOW luck, not NO luck. Imagine every round you are one unit up and your opponent is one unit down, the battle lasts for, say, 4 rounds. Take in account the fact that every round depends on all previous rounds, and the battle isn’t as predictable as one might perceive. For the moment, I’m playing an oppo who’s really pissed of by LL dice, so it’s not all that predictable…
But it’s true, one can take more risks (or better: what would be much more risky in ADS), but what’s wrong with that? If you think the battle favors you, why not do it?
@Cmdr:
With that change alone I win almost every LL game I play. Why? Because I have no problem sending 6 bombers to attack your AA Gun, I’ll only lose one, I’ll never lose 5. Likewise, I know I can hit you with 6 Infantry, 24 tanks and get 13 hits every time. That means if you have 14 units present, I can always retreat 1 or 2 infantry and every last tank I have. In ADS that’s not going to be true necessarily. Maybe you get 7 or 8 hits in ADS? Maybe I screw up and get 14 or 15 hits taking the ground when I didnt want too?
Well, in LL your opponent just made a huge mistake placing those inf there. But in Ads, I don’t think if you just wiped 13 inf from the map and you have 24 (!) tanks left, your opponent is going to be able to retaliate. And just grabbing 13 inf almost for free would be the most lucrative battle I ever fought. It’s a bit of an extreme example. I suppose in ADS you just leave the 13 inf be, just because you might get 7 hits and your tanks would be in a bad spot? At what odds would you take a battle then? If it’s at about 90%? Or 99%? The chances of an undeserved loss are still pretty high. And do you think it should be possible to defend yourself from a 24 tank dash with a lousy 13 inf? I believe the game is broken if that’s possible…
But as you say yourself, Allies win all the time, then give Axis a better bid.
Here’s my challenge: Axis get 10 IPC to purchase units or keep for themselves, I play either side, you’re allowed to choose side, DAAK rulings.@Cmdr:
And my position is that LL changes that game mechanics to such a degree it is no longer the same game. Kinda like Siamese Chess is not really the same as Chess.
Not true, Siamese chess is much more different from normal chess: 2x as much units, 2x bigger board, waay lesser time to think, and pieces are never really lost; they just reappear on the other board. Let’s compare LL to chess and ADS to chess with tossing coins if you capture a piece: by tails you also loose the capturing piece. Noone’s ever gonna capture with his queen again :D
Off-topic: Siamese chess rulezz!! Endless offers, relenting attacks, formidable pawn structures and genial counters which can change the odds in the blink of an eye.
-
@Cmdr:
Likewise, I know I can hit you with 6 Infantry, 24 tanks and get 13 hits every time. That means if you have 14 units present, I can always retreat 1 or 2 infantry and every last tank I have. In ADS that’s not going to be true necessarily. Maybe you get 7 or 8 hits in ADS? Maybe I screw up and get 14 or 15 hits taking the ground when I didnt want too?
Just to add a bit, Jen you’re right that it isn’t necessarily true that an ADS player will strafe but it is a good bet they WILL. It won’t be as perfect of an attack but leaving 14 units next to a stack of 30 is just a bad play, regardless of ADS or LL. In ADS you attack with 6 inf and 18-20 arm. If you do 18 arm you’ll probably come out with 10 hits to 5 (approx) and you still have room for a roll-up of 3.
Meaning even if 2 of your inf hit, you’d still be safe with 11 hits out of 18 on the arm (61% hit ratio).The point to look at is the move itself. Putting 14 units in a position like that is a bad idea. Using the LL method it is obvious why it is a bad move, thus the player learns and doesn’t make the move. Now translate that to ADS and is putting 14 units in that position now a good move? No way.
Again, the strafe isn’t as perfect but the potential to tons of damage for only a few inf is still there in ADS and it is still a good move to do the strafe and still a bad move to put 14 units in that position.I’m not saying LL doesn’t change some things b/c it does, but it isn’t that drastic of a change and I’m one of the players that believes most (if not all) LL strats work in ADS but you can’t say that about ADS to LL.
If your strat fails in LL you might as well never try it ADS, b/c it is clear you’d need some type of major roll-up (luck) to win, which means you’ll lose more game then you will win with that strat.
Now if your strat succeeds in LL it should work in ADS with “avg” or “good” dice, and probably won’t work with bad dice. But if you’re constantly getting bad dice all game it really doesn’t matter your strat, cause you had no shot at winning anyway.
-
Well lets see
Rolls: 6@1 24@3; Total Hits: 136@1: (5, 5, 1, 2, 4, 5)24@3: (2, 5, 4, 6, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 5, 2, 2, 2, 5, 1, 5, 4, 2, 2, 4)
Rolls: 14@2; Total Hits: 414@2: (5, 1, 2, 5, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 4, 4, 3) -
LMAO
-
If your strat fails in LL you might as well never try it ADS, b/c it is clear you’d need some type of major roll-up (luck) to win, which means you’ll lose more game then you will win with that strat.
Now if your strat succeeds in LL it should work in ADS with “avg” or “good” dice, and probably won’t work with bad dice. But if you’re constantly getting bad dice all game it really doesn’t matter your strat, cause you had no shot at winning anyway.
NOT true.
Strategies that are excellent for Low Luck utterly fail with normal dice, and strategies that are excellent for normal dice utterly fail with Low Luck.
Battles under Low Luck have far more controllable outcomes. Therefore, instead of coming up with, say, a 75% probability of a winning or acceptable outcome as with regular dice, you instead have a 95% probability of a winning or acceptable outcome under Low Luck. This difference in probability is compounded over time, allowing the Low Luck player to carry out multiple battles with high probability of success, whereas the SAME EXACT attacks with regular dice would result in probable failure for at least one of those battles. Thus, the Low Luck player does NOT have to deal with the possible opening in his/her position that bad dice rolls would result in, while the regular dice player DOES have to deal with possible openings.
This is why I think Low Luck players require less skill than regular dice players. Low Luck players can predict battle results with higher accuracy BECAUSE they are playing Low Luck, and so do NOT have to worry about the other results that could happen.
Illustration?
I’ll go ahead and use the OOB/FAQ G1 LRA Sealion, as it offers the most dramatic and understandable view on the differences between Low Luck and regular dice. (The same holds true to a lesser extent for attacks such as the 3-territory R1 attack which is ridiculous in ADS but feasible for Low Luck - but I digress).
Say R1 does NOT lead with an attack on Ukraine and does not fly fighters to London (which is improbable in the first place if Low Luck is in play, but I digress)
Under LowLuck, G1 responds with 6 LRA tech dice and a transport buy. After the AA gun on London fires, Germany invades 5/6 of the time to sea zone adjacent to W. Europe and London with 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 infantry, and 1 tank fighting against 1 bomber 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank 2 fighter. Germany almost certainly wins with a tank and a bomber, taking the UK for an income of 72+ some. The German Atlantic sub attacks the E. Canada sub with high probability of winning, and the German Med fleet moves west, grabbing Gibraltar.
If the German attack on E. Canada succeeds, UK cannot retake London. US can only invade with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber (landing on Greenland). Germany responds on G2 by retaking London with 3 inf 3 tank 1 bomber (1 transport from Baltic, 1 transport from G1 buy, 1 transport from Med), moves sub to sea zone southwest of sea zone 8, making US2 retake of London impossible. If Russia did NOT fly fighters to London, the ONLY real risky part of this battle is the E. Canada attack, which is fairly favorable.
Now, in a regular dice game, Germany just can’t try all this stuff. The dice break down with 6 LRA tech dice, or with the UK AA gun , or with the invasion of London, or with the E. Canada attack which would allow UK to retake London with high degree of success (allowing a 9 unit stack max with US reinforcements on US1 and Russian reinforcements on R2, as opposed to a 6 unit stack max following a US retake) or with the G2 retake of London. It’s a house of cards that just explodes when you fart on it.
(edit/)
What’s the difference between a 100%, 90%, 66%, 100% independent outcome series for a lock, and a 65%, 85%, 50%, 85% independent outcome series for a lock? Well, under the first, you have 60% lock, under the second, you have 23% lock. THAT is the difference between Low Luck and ADS. Something that’s SMART under Low Luck is RETARDED under ADS. (Note - these are not corresponding to the probabilities of G1 LRA Sealion; I’d compute the values more precisely if I were writing an ARTICLE omgomgomg)And vice versa.
If you are playing Low Luck instead of ADS, you would be retarded NOT to take advantage of the more controllable outcomes. Logically, you would play VERY DIFFERENTLY under Low Luck than you would with ADS.
So if you don’t do the same thing under ADS that you do under Low Luck, and you don’t do the same thing under Low Luck that you do with ADS, then HOW is it that a strategy system that works under one can be said to work for the other? My answer that it is only possible in a world of crack.
a WORLD. of CRACK.
(/edit) -
-
@Bunnies:
I’ll go ahead and use the OOB/FAQ G1 LRA Sealion, as it offers the most dramatic and understandable view on the differences between Low Luck and regular dice. (The same holds true to a lesser extent for attacks such as the 3-territory R1 attack which is ridiculous in ADS but feasible for Low Luck - but I digress).
I don’t play with Tech and am not familiar with OOB rules so I have no problem conceding that point.
I also don’t see much point in playing the game should the G1 player wish to employ such a strat. Which is why I was never a big fan of the PE play in Classic.
I also said there are differences in ADS and LL so one difference might be bid placement. The Russian Triple can be prevented with 1 inf bid to Belo and 2 to Lib. You can even get a way with 1 inf to Lib and 2 to Belo in LL since Egy is a safe take.
I’m also not a big fan of LL SBRs. I think you should be able to shoot down bombers, but that is another topic as well.
@Bunnies:
If you are playing Low Luck instead of ADS, you would be retarded NOT to take advantage of the more controllable outcomes. Logically, you would play VERY DIFFERENTLY under Low Luck than you would with ADS.
So if you don’t do the same thing under ADS that you do under Low Luck, and you don’t do the same thing under Low Luck that you do with ADS, then HOW is it that a strategy system that works under one can be said to work for the other? My answer that it is only possible in a world of crack.
Yes you can control the out comes better but it still doesn’t necessarily make them bad plays in ADS. It depends on your risk tolerance. And b/c you have 100% for some type of triple attack in LL doesn’t mean it is good.
If you do 3-4 attacks in LL and are guaranteed to take but you leave yourself woefully thin in units after that then the 100% attack ratio is irrelevent. Just b/c you can attack doesn’t mean you should.
And in a triple attack scenerio if LL is 100% and that translates to only 70% in ADS that is still worth the shot. So you win 70% of your games, that is pretty darn good.
Now if that 100% translated to 50% ADS, then clearly they game play is different. Or is it? Perhaps in LL that 100% is actually a no go as well since you are forced to move various armor or other high powered units into the killzone where your opponent can kill them with inf/ftrs.I can only talk from my personal experience and I play 90% ADS games yet I base all of my game strats on LL. Whether I move, defend, or attack, I ALWAYS use the LL count to determine if it is a good move or not and then will ADJUST to fit ADS, which might mean (like Jens example) bringing in a few less troops or a few more or slightly shifting a few things to account for potential variance in dice, but the same core moves and positioning hold.
-
I’m going to try and use this example to illistrate my point.
Assume: You want to attack WE
Other Assumptions: Russia is going okay, so far holding off Japan. Germany is pretty well stacked and is keeping up pressure on Mos as well, while UK/US are landing in Kar to help out.Scenerio: WE is now vulnerable to a UK/US 1-2 attack. UK cannot take alone but can weaken so the US can take.
Question: How do you determine when to attack?
Any simulator will say 0% for UK to take.
Is it possible that you look at UK’s army and say I’m attacking with 6 inf, 4 arm which should be 3 hits and then I should get another 2 hits (4 arm) the next rd and those 5 hits are enough to weaken for the US to take. (Assume 6 inf 4 arm vs. 12 inf, 4 arm).
Or do you run the dice simulator and look at all the damage odds that come out to at least five hits then add those all up and see if that total % is within your risk level for the attack?
That seems to be a bit more cumbersome then just doing the LL numbers in your head, and isn’t going to provide you with any better insight into the attack since the attack still comes down to UK sacrificing itself for the US attack. Once you roll that first rd of battle you are committed to battle, so what I’m getting at is what do you look at prior to making the attack? Again the assumption is you will be attacking WE at some point.
-
A) 10 IPC to the Axis is too high in any game, IMHO. 7-9 is the limit and I only bid 9 when I want to be the allies.
B) DM, the problem is that with 6 infantry, 24 armor I know I will ALWAYS get 13 hits in Round 1 in LL. That means if the defender has 14 ground units there, I will always be able to retreat after the first round.
However, let’s pretend the defender has 14 infantry defending, you attack with 6 infantry, 24 armor. (And the defender has 30 armor, 6 fighters, bomber and another 18 infantry close by, you just have 14 infantry there in an ADS game in hopes of driving down the defender’s forces and/or splitting their armies.)
In LL you have a 100% chance to have 1 defender surviving round 1
In ADS you have a 44% chance to eliminate all defenders in round 1, getting stuck where you did not want to be.Sure, you might strafe anyway, but I think you’d strafe with far less units and maybe more infantry then before just to make sure you can retreat, which in turn would leave the enemy with more units as well, since you have to adjust to get the Confidence Interval you want. (How many extra or fewer casualties are you willing to inflict at what risk of not being able to retreat?)
Anyway, the offer still stands. Battlemap, in house dicey, LL rules (LL for SBR too) and you get 7, maybe 8 IPC. (I’ll entertain 8 IPC if you want a transport in the Med, otherwise you get 7 IPC for ground units or just plain old cash for round 1.)
-
Come on Jen no coment on my ADS roll? I am still loling a little bit. :-D
-
Come on Jen no coment on my ADS roll? I am still loling a little bit. :-D
Yes, it is neat, but it was the mean result. :P hehe.
The thing is, I really don’t think there is a way Germany can realistically win in a LL game without vastly inflating the bid, like the only taker is wanting.
But I’d love to be proved wrong. Using a normal bid, for axisandallies.org games, which falls between 7 IPC and 9 IPC on average, how can Germany win?
-
@Bunnies:
Under LowLuck, G1 responds with 6 LRA tech dice and a transport buy.
If you are playing with LL, you are trying to minimize randomness, so why would you even have tech in the game?
@Bunnies:
This is why I think Low Luck players require less skill than regular dice players. Low Luck players can predict battle results with higher accuracy BECAUSE they are playing Low Luck, and so do NOT have to worry about the other results that could happen.
This is a faulty argument because it ignores the additional responsibilities LL places on the player. Because you can predict battles with higher accuracy, you know that each unit you buy, possibly 3 turns before it even gets to the front, will be crucial in a close game. In ADS, you go with a general plan that gives you some flexibility, like buying a mix of infantry and artillery in a certain proportion, maybe adding a few tanks or a plane if you have a surplus, but in LL you can make specific economic plans because the battles are much more predictable. In my LL games, I’ve sometimes found myself fighting over 1 IPC territories because that territory would give me, say 40 or 42 IPCs with Japan in a KJF game, and buying 5 subs or 2 AC + 1 Ftr would stop America from going further. In ADS, America might just charge on and your subs might all miss. Then you’re screwed.
You can say it’s a form of skill to recover from such a bad roll of the dice, but even if that point is conceded, the entire reason you’re in such a predicament isn’t your fault. Your dice were just bad. In LL games, when you get in a tough position, it’s generally because you made a mistake and not because your dice were bad. In LL games, the skill is in not getting in such a position in the first place.
So, yes LL does change the game in significant ways, and probably screws up traditional bids, but if you prefer a more chess-like approach to the game with greater certainty, it is not necessarily a change for the worse. Try telling a chess grandmaster that making him roll dice to determine whether his queen can capture his opponent’s pawn will add skill to the game. He’d obviously laugh. I doubt he would be consoled if you told him he could demonstrate superior skill by making a comeback after he lost his queen trying to take a pawn.
-
I routinely throw my queen away in Chess, she’s completely and utterly useless except as a weapon to make the other guy’s king a widower.
Anyway, that’s basically the point. LL is a formula. ADS is a strategy.
Suggested Topics
