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.
Come on Jen no coment on my ADS roll? I am still loling a little bit. :-D
Me too. :-D
If we had a Hall of Fame for posts, that post belongs there.
@Cmdr:
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?)
In that situation the attack just needs to come out with a 2 to 1 adv to make it worth it. That is the difference between an attacking inf compared to defending inf. While the 13 to 4 trade is obviously best case and a great deal, 10 to 5 would make the attack effective. So again with 14 units sitting there you only need enough inf to cover your opponents potential hits and 6 inf do fine there, now out of your 24 arm you can bring in 18-20 and see if you get a 10 to 4/5 trade. Your just looking for 2 to 1 or better.
Unless you already have an IPC unit lead where as long as you kill more than you lose you’ll be fine, in that case you could play really safe and go 6 inf, 16 arm.
Now you’re right there definitely could be a situation where you want to wear your opponent down, but in this case you might want to consider moving in only 3-5 inf instead of 14. Strafing 3-5 is pretty difficult and probably not worth it and here if they take, you’re probably only trading 5 inf for the 5 inf they move in and now you move your giant hordes in to take an hold when you are ready.
So even with the extra trade you probably trade 1 to 1 instead of leaving the stack of 14 where the attack has a great shot at a 2 to 1 trade.
@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?
Tech is a game rule, it’s “standard”, as opposed to the OPTIONAL National Advantages.
@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. . .
Etc. etc. OK, you’re right . . . but I’m not going to admit it. HAHAHA. Oh wait . . .
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.
Maaaaybe
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.
Except for the bad analogy at the end (chess doesn’t use dice in the first place, while Axis and Allies Revised does use dice), which I can pardon as I suppose you are trying to illustrate the point, I agree you have a POINT. But I am certainly not going to say that LL players are generally more skilled than ADS players, because I sure as **** don’t think that’s the case, and I’m not going to say LL strategies will work in ADS or vice versa, because I sure as **** don’t think that’s the case either.
note - "***" refers to star-shaped butter cookies.
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.
Look, DM, let me break it down for you.
Suppose you are playing Low-Luck with tech going into effect at the beginning of the turn, where Russia doesn’t fly fighters to London on attack Ukraine on R1. Just suppose this is the case. Don’t get bogged down too much in the game details, because what it really comes down to is that under such conditions, the Axis have a 55%+ chance of locking the game right there under Low Luck. 45% chance of shooting themselves in the ass right away, 55% of a win, understand what I’m saying?
Whereas under ADS, the Axis have an aggregate 15% or so chance of locking the game but a 85% chance of shooting themselves in the ass. Percentages here or there, whatever.
So now you’re going to say you don’t play Low-Luck or you don’t use tech. Whatever. I don’t care about that, and neither should you. My original point, and the point I’m still trying to make is that when you have a number of independent-outcome events, the results of which will affect your strategy, it is not a simple matter of reallocating units and “fudging” a LL strategy into an ADS strategy or vice versa. Because the percentage of acceptable-outcomes is far more controlled in LL, you get a picture that looks ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
If you want to be abstract, then let’s say under Low Luck you have a 99% chance of victory and under ADS you have a 80%. Doesn’t seem like a big difference? But say now that you have four independent outcome battles each of which you must succeed at to make your unit purchase (say eight tanks) effective. Under Low Luck, 99% ^ 4 = 96%, you will probably succeed at each of those four locations. Under ADS, 80%^4 = 41%, you will probably FAIL at at LEAST one of those four locations. Considering that under ADS, you will PROBABLY fail, your purchase has to change, and between the change in the purchase, the change in the possible allocation of your forces between four as opposed to three territories (say, to make certain attacks more certain), and the actual outcome of the dice, your glorious LL strat with a 96% probability of success is a ****-stained rag floating in the wind with 41% probability success under ADS.
The differences in probability COMPOUND over time. This is my point. LL is not ADS, and vice versa.
I’m not going to break down the number of times when such a case happens - there’s plenty of times, like Germany using air to open a territory for Japan tank blitz to Moscow, or early territory trade/claiming, or multiple air/naval/combats to control the Suez - but it does happen. When you’re talking about “shifting a few things”, you might think you’re not making a big change, but think about the aggregate effect of such change over four or five turns, and the changes in unit purchases you make to minimize your risk; the upshot is that your ADS and LL games end up playing radically different; isn’t that the case?! And if that IS the case, then how is it that you can claim that ADS and LL strategies are nearly the same?
At best, you could say that you use LL to calculate the baseline probability of a single combat, then approximate the deviance and add units to minimize risk - but such calculation and approximation of single combats do not singly comprise your STRATEGY; your LL STRATEGY and your ADS STRATEGY are still TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
The strategy is the same, the dice are irrelevant, LL/ADS it doesn’t matter.
You move your Germany Stack to Ukr the same time you move the remnants of your Afr corp to Per just as Japan can take Novo or Kaz heavy. Ideally this happens between rds 4-8. LL/ADS it doesn’t matter. The Allies can have a million units in London or Canada prepared to land but it won’t help if Russia has to deal with a Ger-Jap 1-2.
Lose an extra inf here or there to dice doesn’t matter and doesn’t alter your game strat (or it shouldn’t). Losing 10 inf to 3 inf might but that’s ADS and if that happens you chalk it up to one of those games you weren’t ment to win. It happens.
This might be off topic, but you should never being buying a one time purchase based on your need of winning some battles whereas if you lose your purchase is deemed poor. That is just bad strategic planning and I doubt that player would win the game in LL or ADS.
Unless you are already trailing and make maybe a last ditch effort buy or something.
LL DOES tend to speed games up b/c they are less forgiving. If you make a mistake in moves you are likely in deep deep trouble.
Whereas in ADS the trailing player can potentially drag things out in hopes of good dice later. In LL that player probably just surrenders and saves a bunch of time.
We should probably move away from the hypothetical battles or army numbers b/c we can probably trade scenerios all day long.
I’ll go right to a Germany strategy I use, “The German Lurch”, it works in both ADS and LL, it doesn’t matter if I’m lurching with 10 inf, 10 arm (in a LL game) in rd 4 or if I’m lurching with 20 inf, 8 arm (in ADS) in rd 6, it is still the same move and same strat.
No two ADS games are the same just like no two LL games are the same, so I’m not saying a LL game will be exactly like an ADS game, but the underlying strategy of a LL game will work in ADS but the opposite isn’t true b/c an early good/bad roll in ADS can skew it enough where you are forced to think “did I win because taking Novo was a good idea, or did I win cause he got no hits when I attacked?”
With all this said I still prefer to play ADS b/c there are a couple of elements of LL I don’t like (SBRs to name one), but if I’m thinking of doing something new I’ll try it in LL and if I can’t convice myself it’ll work there then there is no point in trying in ADS unless I want to put the fate of my game into the dice gods hands.
Yea, LL really speeds up games. By turn 5 I have Russians in Berlin.
Anyway, the point is that LL and ADS are not the same game anymore. One’s a game of formulas, the other is a game probabilities and chance.
Owkey, since I think most of you guys live on the other end of the world making it difficult to have a real discussion responding to each other, I’ve made a little list of what I read so far in this topic, and I’ll comment on each a bit:
arguments con:
LL is a formula, ADS a strategy
LL makes strategies feasible that aren’t going to make it in AdS
LL makes strategies that are 50% in ADS 100% in LL
=> comment: Let’s make a difference between tactical TRICKS and strategical PLANNINGS. The 3 sentences above are talking about tactics: if I attack his 14 inf or go Sea Lion… I admit that tactics are different (not a lot, but enough to matter) in LL than in ADS. That’s just thinking a bit more radical in LL games than ADS games. But if we’re talking about strategies, both ADS and LL are the same: G’s strategy is to build up stacks of arm+inf on the eastern borders to eventually try to attack Mos, J is pushing inland to raise pressure on R, UK and US are both trying to land units in Asia/Europe to relief pressure on R. Strategies are long-term plans and don’t differ between LL/ADS. Tactics are tricks of the moment that have to be avoided or executed in order to get an edge. Tactics do differ from LL to ADS. If that’s good or bad, I don’t know.
LL SBR’s are always good
=> Since one cann’t loose it’s bomber, it’s always a good idea to go SBR in LL. True. As, theoretically, it’s always a good idea to go SBR in ADS. However, the difference between throwing a 1 and not throwing a 1 is 18,5 Ipc’s, just for one die. I think this is ridiculous and can ruin a game. SBR is broken in ADS: imagine an oppo who goes heavy on SBR, and succeeds a lot because of good dice, so you get IPC crippled and loose the game. There’s nothing one can do against this strat, except hoping for good dice. This is not the kind of game I like to play, because it’s nothing else than roullette if played this way. That’s the flaw in ADS: mediocre or bad strategies are possible when backed up by good dice. This happens not a lot, but enough to either think you won undeserved (=not good), or you lost undeserved (=not good). If half of the games one plays are not good, I don’t like the game. LL fixes this.
LL is easier and requires less skill
LL is ‘calculable’
=> True, LL is calculable (in the sense of more predictable), and requires less ADS-skill (calculating chances). But it requires more LL-skill (planning, looking ahead). I don’t think Chess players will agree chess (=LL) requires less skill than warhammer 40K (=ADS). It just requires a different skill.
Axis cann’t realistically win in a LL game without vastly inflating the bid.
I don’t know, I only played one LL game (with allies), and I enjoyed it a lot (and won).
pro:
LL is an easy way to get insight in battle mechanics
LL speeds up games
LL vastly reduces the bad dice syndrome
=> no comments on pro, since I’m on the pro side :-D
@Cmdr:
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.
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.)
If 10 is too high, why don’t you wanna play axis then? (this is the whole point of having a bidding system :| ) But I’m willing to adapt: 9 IPC to axis, from which 7 for ground units, owkey?
Off topic: where do I find more information on that in house dicey thing, and on the LL-rules used in this board?
I guess we could do 9 IPC, but then I’d request 50/50 for Germany/Japan break as you want it.
SBRs are broken in EVERY game, IMHO. If Germany and Japan get 6 bombers running, Russia is lost, I don’t care what round Germany was kicked out of Africa. I’ve found that 6 bombers going after Russia tend to do almost as much damage as Russia earns. And in tech games, rockets are even better.
However, they are less broke in LL where you take 3 or 4 IPC in damage and do 2 or 3 IPC in damage to the industrial complex per bomber.
Off topic: where do I find more information on that in house dicey thing, and on the LL-rules used in this board?
In the Play games forum, but here’s a quick lesson:
Type this in to any message box:
(colon)AAA (number of Dice)@(hit Value)(colon)
this is 3 dice hitting on a three:
Rolls: 3@3; Total Hits: 13@3: (4, 2, 6)
I think there’s a test thread some where in the play games forum, btw you can’t edit the results that the first thing most people wonder…
