@axis_roll +1
My take on LL versus Dice
-
just one more time before i bow out of this discussion:
determining the better player more accurately, or getting closer to average results in battles to make certain strats ‘work out’ more often, or having the superior player win more regularly as the result of less variance, is completely beside the point.
so you are playing dice, you outplay your opponent, you achieve 85% odds in a decisive battle, and lose. as the result, you lose the game. so what? you played better, made better decisions, took your shot, and then lost. the only thing you have been denied in all of this is the satisfaction of winning.
take LL. now, you have a game system where certain strategical concepts have been nerfed considerably. what have you lost? a rich tapestry of ideas.
fine, play LL. it is a very good game in its own right. just don’t call it A&A.
-
just one more time before i bow out of this discussion:
determining the better player more accurately, or getting closer to average results in battles to make certain strats ‘work out’ more often, or having the superior player win more regularly as the result of less variance, is completely beside the point.
so you are playing dice, you outplay your opponent, you achieve 85% odds in a decisive battle, and lose. as the result, you lose the game. so what? you played better, made better decisions, took your shot, and then lost. the only thing you have been denied in all of this is the satisfaction of winning.
take LL. now, you have a game system where certain strategical concepts have been nerfed considerably. what have you lost? a rich tapestry of ideas.
fine, play LL. it is a very good game in its own right. just don’t call it A&A.
If you play Texas hold’em you know if other players can have a stronger hand than you. In A&A ADS games you don’t know how lucky you or your opponent gets until after the dice are rolled. In poker, one game is one rnd, one evening can be 20-50-80 deals/rnds. In poker, you can see your winning chances before you bet, in dice games you see the chances after you attacked. In poker, if you have bad luck, you can just leave the table and not waste any money. In A&A, you concede a whole game.
Whats the point of playing if dice is what decides the outcome, and not the decisions of the players? Why spend many hours, perhaps 2-9 hours on a game, and then you loose b/c of bad luck not bad play? The difference between LL and ADS is that you have to play many more games to be sure to determine the better player, maybe 10, or maybe 20-30 games. Some LL games are also decided by luck, but not so many as in ADS. My guess is that luck decides 1%-49% of all ADS games, and 1%-10% of all LL games. The reason why I prefer LL is b/c a strategy game should be won by the better player, not by the luckiest player.
The reason why I play A&A instead of chess is that A&A is more war-like, and it’s a modern strategy game, while chess is an old strategy game.
The whole point of playing A&A is to play a strategy game in which the better play wins as often as possible, just like chess. If not, then you might as well play yahtzee or even better, Ludo. If you didn’t try Ludo yet, you’re gonna love it. Dice plays a huge role in Ludo :evil:If you use bids in classic or revised, don’t call it A&A. If you play w/o tech in classic or revised, don’t call it A&A. None of this are official rules.
-
@Craig:
Playing with dice gives the game that certain “edge” that comes from the unknown.
(snipped…)
For me, the fog of war is very present and very dense, also in LL games. In my LL games, the whoops and groans comes from bad decisions, horrible mistakes, bad overview, not seeing 1-2 punch etc.
In my LL games, I am never certain of anything, until I see the opponent types gg :-D
And when I’m conceding, the process is usually just as slow in ADS games as in LL games, although LL games always makes it past the first rnd.When we “take out the dice”, we don’t remove the dice altogether, we reduce the randomness. Players who have never tried LL would be amazed on how much randomness there can be in some LL games.
As for computation, not even Deep Blue, or Hydra can compute A&A, it’s much too complex. Human brains can’t even compute chess, and A&A is much more complex in possible number of movements, than chess.
The TripleA weak AI, and the AI in the GTO version is the “best number-crunching supercomputer” today… :roll:
-
I couldn’t agree more. These are my sentiments but I didn’t have the time to articulate them as eloquently as you on my first post. I’d throw some karma your way if I could.
-
It looks like someone got in before me …. my last post was in response to Craig’s.
-
Thats what 25+ years of AA and SOM baseball ftf tell me
-
jeez! strat-o-matic baseball?!?! i used to play that all the time!! do they even still make it?
-
Yep strato is still going strong. You can now get the seasons on cards or cd-rom
-
wow i may have to look into getting into it again. do you know where i can find it?
-
You can order online at strat-o-matic.com They also have capability for online play. I think they are still located in Glen Head, Long Island NY. When we were younger our league always made the Strato Review as we always purchased the first set of cards on their opening day in January
-
I am used to play LL in PBEM games, because playing dice rollers “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe” … Also palying f2f “extreme” results happens sometimes. I am able to survive to that however.
The problem is, IMHO, that LL do not resolve all problems. The opening move are still influenced by the dice. There are many small battles involving few units. As many said before small battles are less “scripted”, also with LL the single die has still a big impact on the game. LL is great in “stabilizing” big battles but less effective with few units involved. Strafing shines with LL.
The problem of the big battles however is not the principal problem, IMHO. I often hear people that speak of a match ruined by the dice. They say: I played a good game, victory was in my hands, I deserve to win, but he attacked Moscow (Berlin) with only 10% chanche to win and… he won! What a pity that no one was there to see those event to witness the defeat of a superior strategist to a inferior one in a single battle thanks to dice, after an uncountable number of defeats.
First of all how is it possible to lose to a single battle, in a decisive but single spot, if someone is winning all over the map? If one has a superior strategy/position/force balance and leave an opening to a 10% attack at least he has made one error. If that 10% defeat happens …that the error was a decisive one… Better was to sacrifice a little bit of materiel or position to avoid the possibility of that attack. An Error. Which error? Maybe all that superiority should have been used for ending the game before defeat. Or maybe all that supriority was only our opinion? It is more simple to whine for dice than to analyze our own errors. I am also a chess player, and usually when I play tournament, I take note of my moves and after the match I analyze critically my moves to understood why I have won or lost the match. With TripleA I analyze the game history: the moves, the attacks and the statistics of each round to identify my errors, looking at them critically. Often I have found bugs in my moves and I try to learn from my own errors.
Second: 10% is not 0%. There is a thing that many people do not consider of statistic. It is not like a vote in parliament where the majority is obtained with 50% + 1 votes and the motion is approved or rejected. Statistic have to do with “a priori” possibility (probability) and “a posteriori” observation of results (frequency). Playing A&A by 10 years is not substitute of a book of statistic. Having 10% probability of winning for my opponent, meaning 90% of probability of victory for me, does not mean that victory is the sure event (100% probability) but only that “it is really more likely to happen a victory”. Speaking of frequencies: repeating the same battle 100 times it will be won by me in about the 90 of the attempts end won by my opponent in only 10 cases. What a pity that statistic say nothing about the “order” in wich defeats and victory will happen. No one can grant that the first 90 attempts will be, or should be, my victories.
So where I see the utility of LL? In the ordinary battles. Trading of the frontline territories. In ordinary dicing you may lose a counter attack. With LL if you want to be sure of a winning then you can be sure of winning. Using the best allocation of attacking unit it is possible to have 100% win (sure event) if you want.
There is a problem also here, however, this may “consume” more materiel sometime, materiel that will be washed away in the enemy counter attack that will be done using LL and in wich our remaining units will be smashed without hope (to be themselves destroyed in my next turn). Usually I react to that palying as it was not LL: I trade frontline zones with minimal forces using about the same units used in ordinary dice. For example I use 2 inf and 1 fig againist a lonely inf and not 2 inf and 2 fig or 3 inf and 1 fig to achieve 100% victory chanches.
Concluding my opinion is that we have problem also with LL, that solves many issues but leave others open. The game with LL is different, is still A&A, but it is different, and sometimes requires different skills to be mastered. And requires also different skills to be accepted… Some weeks ago I was accused of being too much lucky in a TripleA LL games becuse my dice hits more than the expected average…
-
@Subotai:
Thats the problem with the dice in A&A, the dice does not simulate real battles, although it is meant to do this.
If the Vietnam war was fought with ADS, you could have up to 500.000 dead American soldiers (worst case) instead of 60.000. 200.000 causalities is what you could risk if you were playing regular dice (war) game. This is the extreme variation which happens in dice games.
The nam war was lost mainly b/c political factors, not military failures. In A&A there is (still) no option for political factors, just plain simple military units, land sea and air forces fighting against each other. Or in the Gulf war, we could have 50.000 dead allied soldiers instead of 1000(?). In the Iraq war, coalition forces could very well loose 10.000 troops instad of 1000-2000. If NATO was playing with ADS setting in Afghanistan, the political risk would be too high to send ground troops at all. As some battles in real life goes horribly wrong, you don’t loose the whole war b/c of bad luck, which happens in A&A from 1% to 40% of all games played with ADS setting.
No, they aren’t real battles, because they are little plastic battles, but they do abstractly simulate the war. where 1 INF division could defeat 4 enemy INF divisions, or 300 Spartans could defeat thousands of Persians, or like in the Nam war, where Mel Gibson and half a dozen platoons could rout 3,000 Viet Cong troops in the middle of a field. LL just won’t allow that. That battle could never have happened in LL, but in reality yup… The Bulge saw the Axis with a massive advantage, as did Stalingrad, and LL would have allowed victory there, but that’s not how it really happened.
Sure, the numbers can be run and tell you that 4INF will lose to 1INF 1.16 % of the time, but anyone ever seen it happen in LL? doubtful. Sometimes you do loose wars because of bad luck and sometimes you win them in spite of it.
The poker analogy earlier rings truth–you can outplay your opponent and loose. I was at a tournament this past weekend and teams were competing and good teams were shooting themselves in the foot and loosing because they didn’t perform up to their ability. If it had been LL, they’d have all made it into finals because of their initial seeding, but as it turned out, 3 of the top four all dropped the ball and missed out even reaching the semis.
If someone likes LL, sure play LL. If not, play with each dice roll, ADS or whatever you want to call it. But the fundamentals is that you are playing a different game
-
In real wars they don’t use dice…. :roll: neither LL or ADS is used in real wars. Soldiers use guns not dice…
Real battles are often won b/c of better training, tech, heavy weapons, more weapons, communications, survilance, spying missions in some battles, logistics, terrain, better motivation, defenders advantage, attackers advantage b/c of surprise attack, etc. etc…
ADS do not in any way relate to reality anymore than LL does.
LL or ADS wouldn’t matter if all games I played was in a league/ladder system. But this isn’t the case atm.
By reducing randomness in single games, there’s less chance that the better player will lose in single game in LL than in ADS. But for series of games, 20 or more, the better player will win more games regardless of ADS or LL.I will repeat my statements about “different game”, bids are not mentioned in official rules, like OOB or LHTR, neither is playing w/o tech in revised. So those choices would also make it a “different game”.
-
@ Romulus,
it was a very good post, however, some of my problems with ADS is not that I don’t win every 90% battle, I shouldn’t, thats why it’s 90% not 100%.
It’s that some battles I should be left with 7-8 units, and my opponents wins with 5-8 units left…For capitals, they should probably be stacked to 99% in ADS, 100% in LL.
For smaller battles, I have experienced 4 ftrs vs 1 BB, 1 ftr left, BB not damaged…if BB was damaged I probably would not have retreated the ftr.
I like the football (soccer) comparison, sometimes a level 1 team (Serie A) loses to level 3 team, not often, but it happens. For a level 1 team to lose against a level 2 team is not very uncommon b/c the skills are not very different. In basketball this doesn’t happen as often as in football. Handball is also less “random” than football, for it’s more difficult for a basketball team or handball team in level 2 to win against a level 1 team, this happens more often in football then basket/handball. Still there are no denial in that both football, basket and handball (single) games are both about skill and luck, in the long run it’s definitely most about skills.
My take on this in regard to team ballgames related to ADS vs LL, is that it seems that some battles is like i.e. Inter loses to A.S.D. Pianella…
I should add that even if I’m not that interested in football anymore, I was a huuuge fan of Liverpool (you’ll never walk alone) and still watches most matches in every World Cup and European Football Championship.
For strange reasons, watching football, with more randomness than many other team sports, is/was much more exciting for me than watching other team sports with less randomness.It’s totally ok that once in a while a level 1 team loses against a level 3 team, and every 10 years during a cup competition, a level 1 team lose against a level 4 team. But any further than that?
For me, the randomness can only go so far, then it’s not strategy, then it’s not about players decisions, we’re closing in on Yahtzee, or Hazard…
The real issue for me is really about the numbers of games played and recorded, just like football. Regardless of what game or competition we’re talking about, usually, the better player(s) wins.
With casual games not recorded, this is a major reason why I prefer LL before dice games. -
@Subotai:
@ Romulus,
it was a very good post, however, some of my problems with ADS is not that I don’t win every 90% battle, I shouldn’t, thats why it’s 90% not 100%.
It’s that some battles I should be left with 7-8 units, and my opponents wins with 5-8 units left…For capitals, they should probably be stacked to 99% in ADS, 100% in LL.
For smaller battles, I have experienced 4 ftrs vs 1 BB, 1 ftr left, BB not damaged…if BB was damaged I probably would not have retreated the ftr.
I like the football (soccer) comparison, sometimes a level 1 team (Serie A) loses to level 3 team, not often, but it happens. For a level 1 team to lose against a level 2 team is not very uncommon b/c the skills are not very different. In basketball this doesn’t happen as often as in football. Handball is also less “random” than football, for it’s more difficult for a basketball team or handball team in level 2 to win against a level 1 team, this happens more often in football then basket/handball. Still there are no denial in that both football, basket and handball (single) games are both about skill and luck, in the long run it’s definitely most about skills.
My take on this in regard to team ballgames related to ADS vs LL, is that it seems that some battles is like i.e. Inter loses to A.S.D. Pianella…
I should add that even if I’m not that interested in football anymore, I was a huuuge fan of Liverpool (you’ll never walk alone) and still watches most matches in every World Cup and European Football Championship.
For strange reasons, watching football, with more randomness than many other team sports, is/was much more exciting for me than watching other team sports with less randomness.It’s totally ok that once in a while a level 1 team loses against a level 3 team, and every 10 years during a cup competition, a level 1 team lose against a level 4 team. But any further than that?
For me, the randomness can only go so far, then it’s not strategy, then it’s not about players decisions, we’re closing in on Yahtzee, or Hazard…
The real issue for me is really about the numbers of games played and recorded, just like football. Regardless of what game or competition we’re talking about, usually, the better player(s) wins.
With casual games not recorded, this is a major reason why I prefer LL before dice games.Well said, I agree.
The point I tried to made is that even LL has its drawback. Assessing pros and cons of ADS and LL also I prefer LL. We should agree, however, that LL is kind different from ADS A&A. Not so much, but there are slightly differences.
I like your football basketball comparison. My idea is that in basktball every action may bring points to a team while in football scoring a goal in an action is a great reward. Many good or even otpimum moves in football may only bring a near miss… that brings 0 points. So I believe greater uncertainity of football matches is due to this fact.
Maybe basketball is more similar to A&A with LL because we may, and we should, maximize the “gain” of each move “increasing the score” every time we go to the attack. This is quite impossible in ADS where a couple of infantry on defense may ruin your day or a single BB may shoot out of the sky 3 of four fighters and remain unscratched or only damaged. This are unlikely, and disturbing, results that LL allows to avoid.
I have made the following reasoning about that. In LL I may send 2 fig against a BB (relying on luck to win) and in ADS I may send 2 fig against a BB (still relying on luck to win). In LL, however, I may send 4 fig against a BB and I have to win because the math say that. In ADS sending 4 fig against a BB is still relying on luck to win (well less luck than in the preceding case but losses may be still heavy).
This is a tactical aspect. A&A is made also of Strategy and Logistics, above all, but the “battle resolving methodology” influences all the aspects of the game bringing tactical aspects to strategic level. Making a Computer Science comparison it is like implementation defines the interface of class… while should be the opposite. This problem is greater with ADS than with LL.I do not know how to state my idea well: I would like have a “battle resolving system” that should avoid the “very unlikely results” to happen, but should still leave a little bit of uncertainity. A Wargames (even a Light Wargame as A&A is) should not be a mathematichally exact game IMHO. Chess is a Strategy Game not a Wargame. As it is possible to read in my signature:
“Something must be left to chance; nothing is sure in a sea fight above all.” – Admiral Nelson.
Real Generals and Admirals face uncertinity on the battlefield. No division of the attacking punch by six to have the number of casualites inflicted etc. ADS gives this additional problem to the player. LL allows the player to remove this.
Concluding, IMHO is better to play LL than ADS but it is not the perfect solution. We should have a little bit more uncertainity still reducing the frequence of “unlikely” events happening too often.
-
Good posts and well written, Romulus. +1 Karma :-)
I agree with you in that NO battle is ever certain, or should ever be certain.
•No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. — Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke
So, I feel that ADS is better than LL because of this reason, but I agree that the battle system should take the upper and lower 5% of probabilities out of the mix. (i.e. in a big battle, where you have a 90% chance of winning, you could still lose the battle, but not with the defender completely unscathed - 1 example Germany should NEVER be able to capture Egypt on G1 with only 2 inf, 2 art, 1 arm with NO LOSSES! This happpened in one of my games recently. I don’t know exactly how to implement this idea of removing these extemes though, maybe if the extremes could be calculated, then when the extreme combat result happens, then either just re-roll the entire battle as if the first combat had never happened (It happened in an anternate universe. :-P) or lower the result to the lowest acceptable result. (i.e. possible in the 4 fighters vs 1 battleship scenario, if you completely lost, then the default would be that you at least destroy the battleship as well)
-
How about this house rule?
Every player gets a “re-roll ticket” If at any moment, they feel something extreme is happening, they can ask opponent to re-roll the dice
(IE, if my opponent attacks with 10@1 and rolls 10 ones. I should have the right to ask him to reroll :P) -
i dont think i agree with that though. i have rolled 4 out of 4 on AA shots before, and man would it p*ss me off if my opponet said “ahh, reroll those please”. maybe a half-reroll? the dice is part of it…
-
Good posts and well written, Romulus. +1 Karma :-)
I agree with you in that NO battle is ever certain, or should ever be certain.
•No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. — Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke
So, I feel that ADS is better than LL because of this reason, but I agree that the battle system should take the upper and lower 5% of probabilities out of the mix. (i.e. in a big battle, where you have a 90% chance of winning, you could still lose the battle, but not with the defender completely unscathed - 1 example Germany should NEVER be able to capture Egypt on G1 with only 2 inf, 2 art, 1 arm with NO LOSSES! This happpened in one of my games recently. I don’t know exactly how to implement this idea of removing these extemes though, maybe if the extremes could be calculated, then when the extreme combat result happens, then either just re-roll the entire battle as if the first combat had never happened (It happened in an anternate universe. :-P) or lower the result to the lowest acceptable result. (i.e. possible in the 4 fighters vs 1 battleship scenario, if you completely lost, then the default would be that you at least destroy the battleship as well)
Thanks!
I completely agree with your point. What we need is “uncertainity”. What we do not want is uncertainity obtained by means of complete randomness.
I don not know how to define a dice based battle resolving system with such features. Maybe other systems than the die should be considered.
-
Why would risk management be the aspect that defines A&A? Imho, it is not. To me, A&A is defined by its strategic character, giving you the feeling like you are a WW2 general trying to outwit the enemy.
A WWII general had less reliable means of predicting battle outcomes than in standard A&A. LL, being more reliably predictable, is less like being a real general.
The method of getting battles resolved is simply less important to me. I would even be fine with a no luck system since this would not take away the strategic aspect of the game.
Extrapolating the likely results of combat is at the heart of A&A strategy - LL or otherwise.
If you really think risk management is the “soul” of A&A, go poker.
The key element in Poker is hidden information, not randomness. Psychology is the soul of that game. This means the ability to interpret your opponents’ bets, check, and raises as well as to predict how they will interpret and respond to yours.
There is no secret information in A&A, and hence nothing like the above elements. Poker is better likened to bridge.
Change the word “strategy” by “tactics” and I’ll agree. The strategies in LL are EXACTLY the same as in ADS. Only some tactical tricks are not.
In regular A&A, it is often the right strategy to make a battle when you are a slight underdog. And not only when you are losing and need a break to catch up! (Though those situations have interesting and valid strategic repercussions too).
You could also be strategically correct to enter two battles both as underdogs when it is only important for you to win one of those battles. If you are a forty per cent underdog in two battles, you are actually a sixty four per cent favorite to win at least one of those. In LL you will lose both every time. It is fair to say that strategy is affected.
Tactical effects would be such as this:
An attacker does not generally need as favorable odds for the battle as the defender, because the attacker can pull out if things go bad. In this way a 50/50 battle actually favours the attacker, as may even a battle which would slightly favour the defender were it a fight to the death. In LL this is less a factor.
The tactics of strafe attacks becomes stronger in LL. (I don’t think this is an improvement though, as strafing used to be a hard decision. With the risk removed, it is an easier decision).
Suggested Topics
