@Naqataro Sure, I saw that. I’ve asked the team to look into this issue. Will get back to you when they reply.
New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?
-
Inquiring minds want to know
-
@brian-cannon Well I guess not. That is so incredibly frustrating. So far in 5 games this season I have seen Battleships in shore bombardment go 2 hits for 7 tries. Just watched 3 fighters and a cruiser miss. Previous game 3 fighters and 2 infantry attacking one infantry, 3 fighters missed in 3 rounds of combat think about that three rounds 3 fighters missing 3 rounds. It is just so confounding that the developers just dont seem to graps that tanks, fighters and cruiser that cost more because they hit at 3 just dont hit. I do not know what they need to hear from the community to try and take it seriously, what was the point of the dice survey that was cited any time people had serious questions on the dice in this game?
-
We’re working on implementing the dice feedback we’ve received. It’s still WIP. Stay tuned.
-
@juliusborisovbeamdog said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
We’re working on implementing the dice feedback we’ve received. It’s still WIP. Stay tuned.
Is there actually something wrong with the dice though?
-
It has been one hell of a day with the dice, was involved in three or 4 games and just seen some historically bad dice. Dice do go bad anyone that has played the board game knows this, the problem with this game is they seem to go bad in the same way each time. As I have said time after time, Fighters, Tanks, cruisers, battleships, and bombers just do not hit as frequently as they should. Mind you I have plenty of screenshots from todays action to back this up. What I have noticed though from an Axis perspective is that they just dont seem to go that way as frequently for the allies.
Case in point. British turn 1, it is pretty standard if the British hit the German battleship off Transjordan (when Axis takes Transjordan) British will hit it with 2 fighters and a bomber correct? When have you ever seen this attack go badly? I can say for certain there has only been one time where I have seen this happen and it was two seasons ago. Today I saw it and my battleship didnt even hit back. Does battleship miss sometimes, it surely does and that is not my complaint, my complaint is that British fighters and bombers dont seem to miss or miss near as frequent as my fighters do. A couple days ago I watched three fighters miss three rounds straight, does it happen, yes it does, the problem is in this game it happens far too frequently to just explained as pure chance. Today I had another instance of this, it was 3 fighters in a territory trade battle, and they missed for 3 rounds, there might have been one hit in the final round, I will have to look at my screenshots.In the same game, in Africa, the British bomber that survived the attack on German fleet has to land on Egypt. Following German turn I attack with 1 inf and 1 arty, I dont want to commit my entire Africa corp as it will be wiped out in subsequent British turn. 3 rounds not one hit, 3 rounds 2 hits on a 1 with British bomber. I cant buy a 3 or a 2 but I watch time after time Infantry in defense hit at a greater than 50% rate. subs hit on a 1 in defense and a bomber in three rounds hit twice on a 1.
Now back to the same game. Japan turn 1, Pearl Harbor light 2 fighters, bomber, cruiser and Japanese submarine. Everything misses, American defensive roll, everything hits and my entire force is wiped out but one fighter. Now you can sustain maybe two losses like this and still have a chance but you cannot no matter how good your strategy is sustain this with the rolls I was experiencing today.
Two opponents that I lost to today had perfect records one was 8-0 the other was 5-0. You see from STEAM discussion boards other players talking about near perfect records and you have to ask with the dice as volatile as they are how is that even close to possible?
I have read numerous other posts on Steam discussion boards stating same thing time after time how the miss rate for fighters and practically anything that requires a 4 or less is far to low when compared to the hit rate of infantry. How often have you seen Infantry, artillery, tanks and fighters hit at a near 100 percent rate on defense? Quite a few times, certainly not all the time but you see it enough. When do you see that one offense? I will go even further when do you see that on offense as Axis? I cannot even hit at a 50% hit rate with my fighters and tanks, I watched a bomber today miss three rounds at a 4 but also as mentioned earlier a bomber on defense hit twice in three rounds on a 1.
I have no idea what it takes for the Developers in this game to actually take action and try to rectify this. After they acknowledged a problem with the dice we are two seasons in with zero actions taken to rectify the problem in ranked games. Everyone saw the survey, how could you not they trot it out whenever dice are mentioned.
-
Some of the action today
Here is the attack on Egypt with one inf and one arty, with a bomber in defense, I apologize I dont have the last round where the bomber hit again in defense but I can assure you that it happened
https://imgur.com/a/T1DNHoTFighter misses albeit one fighter and Russian infantry two rounds two hits
https://imgur.com/a/oPdpMjiBomber missing for three rounds
https://imgur.com/a/Nqzna9y
https://imgur.com/a/lfoVqOTlone AA gun recording two hits which has happened three times to me this season
https://imgur.com/a/lkft7qn -
@brian-cannon those arent too bad, check this whole thread out
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/21731/hall-of-shame-tales-of-the-worst-dice-ever/115
those types of unlucky rolls just happen sometime, bomber hitting twice is a 1/36, which isnt that bad.
-
@windowwasher If those were the exception I would completely agree with you that it wasnt too bad, problem it isn’t. As I said earlier in the post and repeatedly in my criticism of the dice in this game Tanks, fighters, cruiser, Bombers and battleships miss way way too much in comparison to infantry on defense, regardless of infantry on defense they miss way way too much. That isnt a one time thing, a two time thing, it is a repeated thing, 3 fighters missing 3 rounds happens way to frequently. Yet I laid out a comparison before of the typical Allied attack on German Battleship and Transport in the med after a successful Trans jordan attack (meaning there are no British ships attacking) two fighters and a bomber on the battleship and trans. It never fails, almost never. Should the attack be successful odds wise, yes indeed it should. However watching my fighters miss more than they hit round after round, it is amazing to me that this one attack almost never fails.
-
Signed on this morning and saw this, this attack never ever goes bad and here again, battleship died without a defensive hit. Meanwhile I am rolling in eternity waiting for 3 or 4 fighters to hit…once.
-
Started a new game Pickpocket Corkscrew, I am Axis, round 1 Russian attack goes off as planned Ukraine is taken with one tank left, Battle for West Russia, Russian loses 4 infantry takes the territory, not terrible for me. Round 1 German purchase 11 infantry 2 arty, take back Ukraine, take Karelia with one Inf. Sea Zone 7 attack goes horribly I end up retreating with one fighter. Transjordan is taken without a loss. Destroyer and transport off Canada east coast is destroyed.
Round 1 British, Standard attack on German Med Battleship, 2 fighters and a bomber goes off beautifully for British player as it does always, curious if this is now scripted in the game. For third game in a row my battleship does not even record a defensive hit. British bomber lies in Egypt, I wonder if this time it will record two defensive hits like the last time. Screenshot below
https://imgur.com/a/aQf2K2mAgain the contrast I cant get a single hit with 2 subs, 2 fighters and a cruiser but an attack with a bomber and 2 fighters on a battleship goes off without a hitch…every single time…
-
This post is deleted! -
@nosho said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
@juliusborisovbeamdog said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
We’re working on implementing the dice feedback we’ve received. It’s still WIP. Stay tuned.
Is there actually something wrong with the dice though?
Waiting for a response to this question
-
@brian-cannon said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
Started a new game Pickpocket Corkscrew, I am Axis, round 1 Russian attack goes off as planned Ukraine is taken with one tank left, Battle for West Russia, Russian loses 4 infantry takes the territory, not terrible for me. Round 1 German purchase 11 infantry 2 arty, take back Ukraine, take Karelia with one Inf. Sea Zone 7 attack goes horribly I end up retreating with one fighter. Transjordan is taken without a loss. Destroyer and transport off Canada east coast is destroyed.
Round 1 British, Standard attack on German Med Battleship, 2 fighters and a bomber goes off beautifully for British player as it does always, curious if this is now scripted in the game. For third game in a row my battleship does not even record a defensive hit. British bomber lies in Egypt, I wonder if this time it will record two defensive hits like the last time. Screenshot below
https://imgur.com/a/aQf2K2mAgain the contrast I cant get a single hit with 2 subs, 2 fighters and a cruiser but an attack with a bomber and 2 fighters on a battleship goes off without a hitch…every single time…
The same people are at the top every season because they execute excellently and minimize risk. Jan, Quintin, Battousai, CND, Il_principino. I’ve played all of them and they execute excellently.
In contrast, my first 5-7 ranked games are the beginning of the season, players are doing all kinds of risky and suboptimal things. 90% of the time, I know I’ve won already by round 2 because they’ve made a purchase decision or movement that’s so outside of optimal such that luck doesn’t matter. What I do is gain a 10 income edge, avoid engaging in major battles and win over 15-20 rounds, minimizing risk by avoiding unnecessary battles and accumulating lots of units so that central limit theorem takes hold. 80 units pressuring 30 units in Moscow. Why take 99% odds when you have 99.999% odds in two rounds.
Specific examples:
-
don’t attack E Canada, send all 6 units to sz7. By sending 5, you’re turning a 99% battle into a 90% battle with variations in the 90% where Germany loses a fighter.
-
Pearl is a risky battle. If you want to minimize risk, stop attacking it as Japan. I have.
-
Stack 5 fighters in reach of UK sea zone and surviving units in sz7 makes it difficult to create a navy. UK will feel strong pressure to use the bomber to trade sz7 instead of attempting to hit Germany’s med fleet round 1. Sounds like UK gets to hit med fleet for free in your games since Germany takes unnecessary risks in SZ7.
-
Germany’s med fleet is expendable. Treat it as dead, and a bonus if it survives round 1. It’s just like the Japan transport in sz61, bomber in Ukraine.
-
-
I’m happy to play a casual game with you and provide feedback. Boston_NWO#4108
-
@marineiguana Hi Boston, thanks for the reply, advice and offer. We’ve spoken before.
The Sea Zone 7 battle most of the time I do send everything, however there are a few times when I do send one sub after the Brit transport and destroyer. When the Russian turn 1 Goes well I think about taking some risk to alleviate the pressure on Germany. 90% of the time I send it all to 7 but there are times when I don’t.
Pearl Harbor light, I know your skill and record Boston and have plenty of respect for that but this is where I will disagree with you. I feel that attack is absolutely necessary, otherwise Japan places no real pressure on Russia and even struggles to survive if faced with KJF. Also the carrier that isnt attacked at Pearl can immediately threaten anything off Japan’s east coast.
I almost always stack fighters within range of Britains sea zones. If Russian attack on turn 1 killed one, I usually have 4 two in France or Northwestern Europe and two in Finland. Lets be honest though with dice rolls any decent sized fleet a carrier with two fighters, and a destroyer and cruiser is going to wipe out a fighter fleet that comes after it be it 4 fighters or 5, with little damage taken. Fighters dont hit Boston. Unless that it is they are attacking German Med fleet, then you are guaranteed one will hit.
As far as your observations on Med Fleet, I do consider them gone. My complaint isnt that I should win that battle, I certainly do not, my complaint is that battle never ever goes to hell for British player, never. As I said I saw it go bad once, two seasons ago. Meanwhile I watch Multiple German fighters miss three turns in a row, I watch the 2 fighters and a cruiser as well as two subs miss in Sea zone 7. I have watched the Sea zone 7 attack go badly, actually horribly a number of times, same with Pearl, it just never goes badly in the Med and I do find that truly curious. I find it even more curious when the battleship doesnt even cause a casualty multi times in a row
-
@marineiguana said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
Specific examples:
-
don’t attack E Canada, send all 6 units to sz7. By sending 5, you’re turning a 99% battle into a 90% battle with variations in the 90% where Germany loses a fighter.
-
Pearl is a risky battle. If you want to minimize risk, stop attacking it as Japan. I have.
-
Stack 5 fighters in reach of UK sea zone and surviving units in sz7 makes it difficult to create a navy. UK will feel strong pressure to use the bomber to trade sz7 instead of attempting to hit Germany’s med fleet round 1. Sounds like UK gets to hit med fleet for free in your games since Germany takes unnecessary risks in SZ7.
-
Germany’s med fleet is expendable. Treat it as dead, and a bonus if it survives round 1. It’s just like the Japan transport in sz61, bomber in Ukraine.
I agree with #3 and #4, but not #1 and #2.
Destroying the British dest in SZ10 is a 50/50 battle (with the potential to destroy an extra 7ipc), and if you fight this battle prior to the sz7 battle, it can help you keep subs alive (by selecting the cruiser prior to the subs as casualties), making it very hard for UK to build any fleet on turn 1. Against highly skilled players (which I know you are), I’ll take the risk with slightly worse odds if they are still favourable and have potentially high rewards.
Pearl is a risky battle, but again, with high rewards. I think sending 5 units there and making sure you select your fighter that is out of fuel as 1st casualty is key. You don’t want to have to bring your AC there.
Cheers.
-
-
@nosho Pearl Harbor without the carrier is Pearl harbor light
-
@brian-cannon Yes. I feel it should be done, unless there are juicier targets out there (Chinese fighter undefended, UK fleet spread out, etc)
-
@marineiguana said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
I’m happy to play a casual game with you and provide feedback. Boston_NWO#4108
Always nice to see players willing to put time in.
@marineiguana said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
The same people are at the top every season because they execute excellently and minimize risk. Jan, Quintin, Battousai, CND, Il_principino. I’ve played all of them and they execute excellently.
It’s not just about execution and risk management. The ranked system rewards grinding. I really don’t feel it’s appropriate to even call it an Elo-based system with rank degradation over time, never mind twenty-four hour limits.
If you have two players with equal skill, but one of them can make the regular 24-hour checkins every day over a few months and another can’t, the rankings are going to reflect that.
So I’d say perhaps it’s that there’s just a few players that meet some level of competency that can also grind consistently. But even if that’s true, that separate to the question of whether any players are using dice exploits or not.
@marineiguana said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
Specific examples:
-
don’t attack E Canada, send all 6 units to sz7. By sending 5, you’re turning a 99% battle into a 90% battle with variations in the 90% where Germany loses a fighter.
-
Pearl is a risky battle. If you want to minimize risk, stop attacking it as Japan. I have.
-
Stack 5 fighters in reach of UK sea zone and surviving units in sz7 makes it difficult to create a navy. UK will feel strong pressure to use the bomber to trade sz7 instead of attempting to hit Germany’s med fleet round 1. Sounds like UK gets to hit med fleet for free in your games since Germany takes unnecessary risks in SZ7.
-
Germany’s med fleet is expendable. Treat it as dead, and a bonus if it survives round 1. It’s just like the Japan transport in sz61, bomber in Ukraine.
I understand your intent was to provide examples, not discuss the particular merits. But your point was to eliminate “unnecessary” risk - what is “unnecessary”? How is it defined?
I feel I’ve been through this particular example before, but that’s all right.
“don’t attack E Canada, send all 6 units to sz7. By sending 5, you’re turning a 99% battle into a 90% battle with variations in the 90% where Germany loses a fighter.”
“Stack 5 fighters in reach of UK sea zone and surviving units in sz7 makes it difficult to create a navy. UK will feel strong pressure to use the bomber to trade sz7 instead of attempting to hit Germany’s med fleet round 1. Sounds like UK gets to hit med fleet for free in your games since Germany takes unnecessary risks in SZ7.”
I get around 98%.
A bit less than 92%.
Ignoring questions like what if USSR sub submerges for simplicity (which does not hurt the counter-argument, as it is sufficient to demonstrate one counterexample) - we know that aacalc has rounding errors. But using the above, 40% of the time Germany has 2 subs and a cruiser or more surviving, 60% less.
We know the UK cruiser survived, why? Because we’re talking about ranked games that use the LHTR setup. It’s said that 5 German fighters are stacked in reach of the UK sea zone, which means the fighter starting on Germany didn’t attack the UK cruiser. We also know no German submarine in the Atlantic attacked the UK cruiser. The assumption here is that USSR captured the Ukraine, which we could say bears closer examination, but I don’t think MarineIguana/BostonNWO would disagree, because he favors the 9 units to Ukraine / capture Ukraine opening, is that not correct? Well, if it becomes a point, we can address it then.
So we know the likely scenario is UK can hit German defenders of 1 submarine 1 cruiser with destroyer from East Canada, cruiser from Mediterranean, and two fighters. Even if you say Germany had two submarines, it’s still a reasonable attack. This still leaves the UK bomber free to hit Germany’s Med fleet on round 1.
But also, why will UK feel strong pressure to use the bomber to trade sz7? Yes, the Allies want to chase the Germans out of the Atlantic, but UK can do a fleet dump on UK3 followed by US reinforcement on US3. That’s assuming Germany doesn’t shift off threatening the UK sea zones on G2. On the other hand, UK is the only one in position to do anything about early German incursions in Africa. You get German income in Africa, that has to be rooted out, and it’s a lot of trouble if Japan is competent. I would say the pressure is on UK to blow up the German Med fleet, that’s why the UK hits the Med fleet at all. If some players don’t, that’s on them.
So you get two reasonable battles for UK at Mediterranean (2 fighters 1 bomber vs German battleship) and another (likely) northwest of UK at sea zone 7 (destroyer, cruiser, two fighters vs sub/cruiser, or optionally 2 sub/cruiser, or you could argue for 3 subs if so inclined. Are those unreasonable battles? Is that not what is indicated?
Are there tradeoffs? Sure. I think it’s more compelling that UK fighters then can’t land on West Russia. But suffice to say it’s not so much that surviving German units in sz7 make it difficult to create a navy along with 5 German fighters, because the German units in sz7 don’t survive, right?
Unless MarineIguana’s talking about pressuring against a UK1 build? I’m perfectly willing to accept that as I think it makes sense, except the details, once worked out, argue against Germany sending everything to SZ 7.
But before starting on that, a brief recap. I’ve explained that Germany sending everything to sz 7 isn’t necessarily a good “brute force” that pre-empts any reasonable UK response. Also, I’ve explained that just about nothing can stop a UK3/US3 fleet drop timing. I’m not saying UK3/US3 is great or optimal, it’s slower than one likes and if one can get away with doing things faster then you definitely do it. But if the Axis do some high pressure options, then UK3/US3 meets most answers, except the ones that pretty much mean the Axis didn’t buy ground, which is another thing entirely. Which I’m fine with addressing, maybe in another thread.
So I’m saying already there’s reason to think twice about Germany sending everything to sz7. Which is without even discussing the points of German fighter placement, because there is going to be a difference between placing fighters on Finland, NW Europe, and France; if you bulk or split, each has its own scenarios.
But then, maybe some players start talking about the edge cases. In which case, there’s even more reason for Germany not to send everything to sz7. Because once you’re arguing on the basis of Germany can possibly get great gains, you have to look at the probability of a proposed action’s getting those gains, as opposed to the probability of a proposed alternative action getting different gains, then you compare the two. If an alternative action is more likely to succeed and has higher payoffs, then that is reasonable risk. Make sense?
So let’s say UK tries to wipe out Germanys sz7 fleet and doesn’t do great - loses a fighter. Not great. Fighters are expensive. If Germany put 5 fighters in range of UK’s sea zones then it can blow up UK’s fleet, right? But no. Because UK can simply opt not to build any naval units, saving it for UK2. And again, this ignores the scenario where UK doesn’t lose any fighters, which is reasonably likely. This is sort of like, UK decides to be super antsy, then decides not to build a navy to challenge Germany’s air force in the first place, which it very well might because if Germany trades off its air against a UK fleet with no transports then it’s Germany bleeding out its stacks against UK, which is what UK/US want to do anyways. But again, we’re projecting that UK is antsy.
So let’s say UK doesn’t build a fleet. What does Germany gain? Finland/Norway for a turn. Maybe two. But that’s all.
Which isn’t bad, sure. Not bad at all.
But think about the chain of assumptions that led to this point. Germany gets lucky in sz7. UK then gets unlucky in sz7 and/or is afraid to grab the bull by the horns. I don’t know that I would assign fantastic odds to this line.
Contrast to what happens if Germany splits a sub off to hit the East Canada fleet. 1/3 chance to destroy the UK destroyer, 1/3 chance to destroy both UK destroyer and transport, 1/3 chance fail. Plus risk of German fighter, but follow along.
Suppose Germany gets lucky at East Canada’s sea zone. 1/3 chance. Compare to the sequence of events needed in the other scenario. I think I would perhaps prefer 1/3.
Then what happens if Germany does get lucky? Germany doesn’t need to defend France or NW Europe at all. So Germany can shift all its units east. And that’s going to be perhaps two or three mobilized units that are going east of Berlin instead of west.
But Germany can just drop AA guns and fighters to defend? UK can hit France and NW Europe with infantry, tank, two fighters, and bomber. If the Allies KGF, Germany will want its AA guns later, and those things are not cheap. But more, Germany always wants its fighters. Leaving German air without ground units helping on defense, even with AA, is a risky proposition. It’s not great if Germany retains its Med fleet, but normally UK doesn’t get a chance to pick off German air either. It’s not the worst.
So already you’re looking at a much better payout. 6 IPCs in the bank (at best), versus two to three mobilized units saving two turns worth of movement and still getting the 6 IPC with the latter. You just have better opportunities for early pressure, it’s so much better.
What if Germany doesn’t get so lucky? 2/3 chance to blow up the UK destroyer; if that happens the Allies have no way to destroy any German submarines at sz 7 that survive the battle if they simply submerge.
So which scenario really favors German survivors in the aftermath of sz7 attack then counter? A better attack, followed by a much stronger counter? Or a weaker attack, followed by a nonexistent counter?
Then too, I’m obliged to Baron Munchausen for his comments in the 1942 Second Edition forum about thinking about taking submarines as casualties after cruisers.
Do I disagree about execution and taking unnecessary risk? Of course not. It’s axiomatic, like “you want to take a lot of unnecessary chances? of course not!” But exactly what is “unnecessary” is, I think rather more of a discussion.
But returning to the point, some players say something works for them, that’s great. They’re sincerely trying to be helpful. But players that experience issues think they are already playing correctly. Telling them to not take unnecessary risks just don’t compute, because they don’t think they are taking unnecessary risks. Giving them a list of specific moves doesn’t work either, because after they do those moves, their game falls apart on the details elsewhere.
I think in the end, the player has to be responsible for seeking out answers if they want them. They have to put in the time if they want their answers. If others are willing to help, that’s great, but others can only do so much.
Returning to the OP, though, I’m not saying everything is the responsibility of the player. There’s a difference between being frustrated by gameplay, and having legitimate concerns over product features.
-
-
@nosho said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:
@brian-cannon Yes. I feel it should be done, unless there are juicier targets out there (Chinese fighter undefended, UK fleet spread out, etc)
Doing pearl or not is a reasonable point of disagreement. I’ve shifted my thinking from generally yes to generally no.
My motivation:
- USA pacific units start really out of position. If going KGF, they’re 4 turns away from position.
- Japan by doing Pearl, places 5 units out of position for a volatile battle moderate profit. These units are important for the India round 3 timing.
- Japan has a formidable starting naval position that USA has to overcome whether of not Pearl Harbor is done.
Suggested Topics
