@axis_roll +1
Low Luck and Normal Dice Roll hybrid
-
To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky. To him, it looks like a completely different game. And it is a completely different game.
So is it really a good idea to allow the rolling player to choose LL or dice, as they are playing “a different game”? I like the idea of each general choosing their own dice resolution system to satisfy their own psychological needs.
One of my friends and I were discussing the idea of picking either LL or dice. You could choose for each battle, you are not limited to one style. Perhaps I am involved in a large naval battle and don’t want to risk losing my entire navy and allowing the opposing general to keep too much of his navy; I may choose to do LL. Though in almost all other cases, I would prefer to use dice. This looks like it adds an additional layer of uncertainty.
-
+1 Karma for OP
(i personally prefer the idea of ‘bad dice chips’. each team gets 3-5 chips at beginning of game and can use them to re-roll any roll they make, but when they run out of chips they run out permanently)I disagree with the general idea people seem to have of why people like playing dice. Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy). I play dice because I believe it involves more strategy. The problem is that people who think LL is more strategic really should just be playing chess, and have yet to understand the reason why dice is more strategic.
Dice demand from a good general the ability to manage risk.
If I am attacking a territory with LL, I can calculate the exact number of units I will need to take that territory with just one unit left, or to take that territory kill all defenders in the first round, etc. If I am attacking a territory with Dice, I understand that the battle may not go as planned in the short term, but that in the long term things should even out. However, the short term matters more, and exponentially effects the long term of that particular battle (ie: bad rolls on the first round of btl hurt more and correlate more highly with battle results than second round rolls, and so on). I also understand that the level of variation is much larger in small battles than in large battles. If I am attacking a territory with 2 tanks, and the enemy has 2 infantry, I understand that the level of variation (or standard deviation of the normal curve of battle results) is much larger than if I am attacking with 10 units against 10 units. This means that, If I have to do 2 attacks during a turn, and I can commit a few extra units to one of those two attacks, but not both, then with Dice I should allocate those units to the battle that involves fewer units (because fewer units means more variation, also known to non-math majors as luck). This is why, when playing dice, a good commander is more conservative, only attacking when he is sure to win, and making sure that he is sure to win by committing more forces than necessary. When playing with LL, you will see that a good commander no longer needs to manage the risk of losing, and therefore will attack more territories every turn, attacking with fewer units. To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky. To him, it looks like a completely different game. And it is a completely different game. LL removes this vital component of risk management from the game.(however, I too can get pissed off when some really important battle swings more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean, resulting in ‘luck’ either giving or taking away the game from me, which is generally not so fun. but I do enjoy when my opponents get luckier than me but I still beat them by playing conservatively and being patient. LL generals just need to have more patience, and more tolerance in their strategies for when things go wrong. LL generals trying to play dice generally make moves that are far to risky, then complain and b**** when they go horribly wrong, even after I try to explain to them that the results of the battle are within two standard deviations, namely because the deviation is so large on such risky moves, and therefore he should try to play better by giving more thought to the consequences of failing to meet all his btl objectives.)
If you’re going to flame my post then don’t bother pussy-footing around with terms like “LL generals”, just use my name. My post was an attempt to weigh the benefits and shortfalls of different battle resolving methods in A&A. Not to prove that LL is more strategic than dice. To that end I thought I was quite clear that I believe LL is better suited to play testing different strategies, and dice are simply more enjoyable. But if you want to argue that “Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy)” than your argument falls on deaf ears here. To suggest that a general who chooses a maneuver which is other than optimal because it involves a random device is LESS strategically competent than one who chooses other than optimal maneuvers is foolish.
The only reason to pass up any edge in any game which combines skill and chance is that one feels confident that their opponent WILL, in the future, offer a larger edge with less variance. Example: player A is a level 1200 player, player B a level 1400 player. In order for A to win a skill/chance game against B he MUST make moves with more risk, in fact he should seek out game-changing battles with a 45% chance of success. If he doesn’t, he will eventually lose to B’s superior strategy. At the same time B must avoid high variance moves that give A a chance to “get lucky”. However, if both opponents skill levels are the same or similar, both should seek ANY edge lest the game become a draw, since the only edge one will get out of a similarly competent opponent will be a small one.
All I want to figure out, when playing LL, is whether or not a particular opening move is +EV(expected value) or -EV. I therefore don’t want dice “interfering” with my “experiment”. Once you have determined if that a move is +EV, it remains +EV even when utilizing dice. IMHO that’s is the most scientific way one can use to determine what a “good opening strategy” generally consists of.
To OP, bad dice chips aren’t a bad idea either. Perhaps an evolution of that idea would be to “sell” bad dice chips for 5ipc(or whatever u think/play test is fair) apiece. Just a thought i had …
I still prefer player choice. Don’t much care for “battle by battle” player choice though. I would think there would be too much “angle shooting” in that scenario. And again I believe that the point of the game is enjoyment. Therefore “player choice” satisfies both player’s needs.
-
+1 Karma for OP
(i personally prefer the idea of ‘bad dice chips’. each team gets 3-5 chips at beginning of game and can use them to re-roll any roll they make, but when they run out of chips they run out permanently)I disagree with the general idea people seem to have of why people like playing dice. Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy). I play dice because I believe it involves more strategy. The problem is that people who think LL is more strategic really should just be playing chess, and have yet to understand the reason why dice is more strategic.
Dice demand from a good general the ability to manage risk.
If I am attacking a territory with LL, I can calculate the exact number of units I will need to take that territory with just one unit left, or to take that territory kill all defenders in the first round, etc. If I am attacking a territory with Dice, I understand that the battle may not go as planned in the short term, but that in the long term things should even out. However, the short term matters more, and exponentially effects the long term of that particular battle (ie: bad rolls on the first round of btl hurt more and correlate more highly with battle results than second round rolls, and so on). I also understand that the level of variation is much larger in small battles than in large battles. If I am attacking a territory with 2 tanks, and the enemy has 2 infantry, I understand that the level of variation (or standard deviation of the normal curve of battle results) is much larger than if I am attacking with 10 units against 10 units. This means that, If I have to do 2 attacks during a turn, and I can commit a few extra units to one of those two attacks, but not both, then with Dice I should allocate those units to the battle that involves fewer units (because fewer units means more variation, also known to non-math majors as luck). This is why, when playing dice, a good commander is more conservative, only attacking when he is sure to win, and making sure that he is sure to win by committing more forces than necessary. When playing with LL, you will see that a good commander no longer needs to manage the risk of losing, and therefore will attack more territories every turn, attacking with fewer units. To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky. To him, it looks like a completely different game. And it is a completely different game. LL removes this vital component of risk management from the game.(however, I too can get pissed off when some really important battle swings more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean, resulting in ‘luck’ either giving or taking away the game from me, which is generally not so fun. but I do enjoy when my opponents get luckier than me but I still beat them by playing conservatively and being patient. LL generals just need to have more patience, and more tolerance in their strategies for when things go wrong. LL generals trying to play dice generally make moves that are far to risky, then complain and b**** when they go horribly wrong, even after I try to explain to them that the results of the battle are within two standard deviations, namely because the deviation is so large on such risky moves, and therefore he should try to play better by giving more thought to the consequences of failing to meet all his btl objectives.)
If you’re going to flame my post then don’t bother pussy-footing around with terms like “LL generals”, just use my name. My post was an attempt to weigh the benefits and shortfalls of different battle resolving methods in A&A. Not to prove that LL is more strategic than dice. To that end I thought I was quite clear that I believe LL is better suited to play testing different strategies, and dice are simply more enjoyable. But if you want to argue that “Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy)” than your argument falls on deaf ears here. To suggest that a general who chooses a maneuver which is other than optimal because it involves a random device is LESS strategically competent than one who chooses other than optimal maneuvers is foolish.
The only reason to pass up any edge in any game which combines skill and chance is that one feels confident that their opponent WILL, in the future, offer a larger edge with less variance. Example: player A is a level 1200 player, player B a level 1400 player. In order for A to win a skill/chance game against B he MUST make moves with more risk, in fact he should seek out game-changing battles with a 45% chance of success. If he doesn’t, he will eventually lose to B’s superior strategy. At the same time B must avoid high variance moves that give A a chance to “get lucky”. However, if both opponents skill levels are the same or similar, both should seek ANY edge lest the game become a draw, since the only edge one will get out of a similarly competent opponent will be a small one.
All I want to figure out, when playing LL, is whether or not a particular opening move is +EV(expected value) or -EV. I therefore don’t want dice “interfering” with my “experiment”. Once you have determined if that a move is +EV, it remains +EV even when utilizing dice. IMHO that’s is the most scientific way one can use to determine what a “good opening strategy” generally consists of.
To OP, bad dice chips aren’t a bad idea either. Perhaps an evolution of that idea would be to “sell” bad dice chips for 5ipc(or whatever u think/play test is fair) apiece. Just a thought i had …
I still prefer player choice. Don’t much care for “battle by battle” player choice though. I would think there would be too much “angle shooting” in that scenario. And again I believe that the point of the game is enjoyment. Therefore “player choice” satisfies both player’s needs.
First off, I am not flaming you, as I posted this from school and quite honestly only read the first 4 posts before I posted. The idea that dice is for people who like luck, and that LL is for people who want more strategy, is one that is batted around the forum for quite some time, and I have been opposed to it for quite some time. You can see that here and here.
I also would disagree with your premise that a battle in LL that gives +Expected value remains unchanged when switching to Dice. If a battle has a 51% chance of giving +EV with dice, and 49% chance of -EV, than under LL it moves closer to 90% +EV and 10% -EV.
LL completely changes the game, allowing countries like Germany, Russia, and Japan to attack more territories than they would normally attack, with less risk and fewer units. Its not about luck, its about 2 completely different strategies that are enacted when using LL vs Dice. If people played the EXACT same way when using LL as they do when they use DICE, then I would be ok with it since it does not change the game. But when people use LL, they are playing completely different battles, with different forces, with different results (and these results ARE different than the median/mean results of dice rolls, which is one HUGE reason I am opposed to LL). -
I think we are in fact agreeing here, where it seems we are not. When you say that a +2% (51to49)edge in LL translates into a -80%(90to10) edge in dice, what I take that to mean is that you have or are confident you can find a better spot in the future to “put the money in”. This is exactly what I am saying happens when one general is more skilled than another. EV is a LONG TERM measure, meaning that if this particular event could be played out infinitely, where do the numbers fall. It is not a short-term measuring device.
So many OTHER things come into play in skill/chance games that this is but one aspect that I’m saying should have SOME bearing on your decision making. I’m also saying that this aspect is STATIC for any given bid. In other words this should be one’s “basic strategy”, or foundation of one’s play.
Other aspects of play include(like you are saying) the variance factor, which is a decision to fight or not fight a certain battle based on it’s possible good/bad results, and how those results affect for ill or good, your OVERALL goals. Yet another aspect is your opponents general method of play…what you think HE/SHE will do when presented with the options you give him/her. I know a player who is ultra conservative. I know another who just can’t stand to play a game for more than 7-8 rounds. I play against them differently. To the conservative guy I don’t need to bid more than 1 unit in UKR to dissuade him from attacking it in AAR R1. The other guy, I tend to wait him out and let him “take his shot” at round 7 or so. Heck I’ll even give him a key-looking battle as bait so he goes ahead and makes the move.
I’ll give you that “risk-management” is part of a good generals game plan. I’m favoring LL atm because I’m exploring different openings/bids in AAR and can’t say for sure if one is better than the other without there being something in place to assure me that the results I’m getting are actually based on the opening, not the die rolls. I don’t know how to be more clear on this point. You ever play or even watch on TV that texas hold’em game? When u start with AA u are a 4 to 1(80% to 20%) favorite against 1 other hand. Suppose player A plays AA against player B, who plays 72. To be clear about the numbers, for every 5 times played, A wins 4 times(4/5) and B wins once(1/5). They play 5 times and all 5 times player B wins. This happens 1 time in 3125 trials, therefore out of 3125 ppl who play this scenario, 1 guy may draw the conclusion that he should fold AA always, and one guy may draw the conclusion that he should play 72 always. Is this picture becoming more clear yet? This is obviously a poorly drawn conclusion of basic strategy based on variance. That’s a most extreme example, but showing that to be correct should allow you to understand that when edges are smaller, the fact remains that there is a clear mathematical “basic strategy” that you should follow UNLESS some other aspect of the game(variance/opponent tendencies) STRONGLY favors another path to victory.
How can anyone evaluate the long-term effect of a particular 1st turn move or purchase without letting “luck” trick them into drawing the wrong conclusion?
-
have you tried using the BattleCalculator in TripleA? you can put in any two sets of units, sea battle or land battle, and even including shore bombardments and technology, and then you can tell it to run a simulation of 20,000. battles. It will automatically take as casualties the lowest IPC value units first. At the end of the 20000 simulated battles, it will spit out the chance of side 1 to win, side 2 to win, draw (both end up with zero units), and then it will also tell you the average number of units the attacker has left, and the average the defender has left. (it also makes you identify which is attacker, which is defender, because that matters for a lot of units).
-
nope. I use aaSIM. it works well enough for my purposes. If u have a link to this other calc I’d be glad to give it a whirl though. Sorry for the excessive banter, I just felt that your original post insinuated that LL generals were crybaby bitches who had noone to blame but themselves for choosing borderline situations in the first place. Peace.
-
oh and by the way i checked your other posts and perused those threads. For the sake of everyone having fun, I’d like to suggest that IF one chooses to use “re-roll chips” (purchased or given at the start of the game) then I think that they should only be able to use those chips on THEIR bad rolls, not to nerf their opponents good rolls. I’ve never gotten upset because of my opponent’s beautiful die, just my own horrible ones. Reason? I took the time and energy to plan MY battle and so I want my “Scooby snack” as a reward for that effort! However I put no effort whatsoever into planning my opponents attack, he did, so no skin off my back if he rolls well. I think most people feel the same way.
Conclusion: re-roll chips for your rolls only = my vote!
-
IF one chooses to use “re-roll chips” (purchased or given at the start of the game) then I think that they should only be able to use those chips on THEIR bad rolls, not to nerf their opponents good rolls.
This is a really good idea and should keep the arguments down. The only place where I see this being bad is on AA rolls. When people SBR me at the beginning, I always miss. But when someone comes in with like 3-4 planes in mid-game, I will have one round where I take out 2-3 of them and they get very upset. If my opponent doesn’t like it, they can’t do anything about it? But then if they can, I will probably roll no hits, so that’s not fair. The person rolling for the AA guns could get no hits and think that is unlucky and re-roll, essentially getting two opportunities with the AA gun. One could really get out of hand with this, but I would think that having the chips cost money may keep this down.
I think of all the options presented, my favorites are 1.) each player can choose their resolution technique. Must be played for entire game, not each battle. and 2.) the ability to purchase “bad luck chips” for 5 IPCs. These can only be turned in to cause a re-roll of your roll, not the entire battle.
-
I was working under that assumption, that the chips can be used to Re-Roll any One of Your rolls, and then it is used up. (you can re-roll your own AA gun rolls [but why would you, they are 1 out of 6, sucky], but you can’t make your opponent re-roll his)
I dislike the idea of buying chips though, because then I could just buy a bunch right as my troops get to moscow to make sure they get through. By having players start with a set number, (a low number), they will have to ration them out.
Another idea would be LowLuck chips. Each team gets 1-2 LL chips. They can then choose use one up by making an entire battle low luck (must declare before btl starts). (i would not support more than 2 LL chips per team, and by team I mean the entire side, so the axis get 1-2, the allies get 1-2, which means if Germany uses one chip up, that chip is gone and Japan can’t use it too, which is the same principle as Re-Roll chips, which I would allocate about 3-5 per team) -
I dislike the idea of buying chips though, because then I could just buy a bunch right as my troops get to moscow to make sure they get through. By having players start with a set number, (a low number), they will have to ration them out.
This is a very astute observation. Taking this further, one could abuse this by getting to the point in the game where they’ve basically lost due to poor moves and then decide to just “go for broke” buying all “re-roll” chips and picking/setting-up some long-shot, game-changing battle and rolling for it 6-8 separate times to get the desired result. This is just like the old “last ditch tech” hail-mary turn ppl used to see in 2nd ed.
I still think that for what OP is trying to accomplish, buying “re-roll” chips is a decent enough option. Perhaps to combat the aforementioned abuse you could make it a rule that only 1 chip may be used per battle? per country turn? per side turn?
RE: LL chips……hmmmmm I wouldn’t think anyone should be forced to pay IPC for these. Maybe some hybrid system? 2LL chips given to each country at start of game and re-roll chips only for purchase? …starting to get a bit too complex for my taste here, but hey, whatever makes the game more enjoyable for both sides!
RE: AA shots, I still think that any re-roll activities should be limited to dice YOU roll, therefore when u have that big battle and your opponent rolls 3/5 AA hits, well, too bad so sad for you. It was his roll, congratulate him!
-
i would not support more than 2 LL chips per team, and by team I mean the entire side, so the axis get 1-2, the allies get 1-2
This works fine for 1v1, but what about multi-player games?
-
Since this is relevant to this discussion ill post it here.
Gnasape, when you gave me the LL rules on SBR i took them on blind faith that you got em from play tested and mathematically proficient sources. However it seems to me that base dmg for SBR’s should be 3 or 4 based on whether or not u hit on a d3, not a d1. If average SBR dmg was 3 1/6 then a d1 would be correct. But average SBR dmg is 3 3/6 so it seems to me that a d3, not a d1, should be rolled where a hit = 4 IPC dmg and a miss = 3 IPC dmg.
Change it up or prove me wrong friend. And hurry up with your turns! I swear u have the attention span of a gnat! Seems your only interested in a game for the first few turns then u wanna start another! GRRRRRRRRRRRRR
-
I would suggest using what another FTF playgroup has stated they are using. Re-Roll cards. Everybody gets one per game. This can be used to totally re-roll 1 battle per game. I also think it is the attacker’s choice to use this card.
I play dice ONLY and I can well see this. I get hammered by the dice server here . I can generate outcomes of the less than one percent against myself without breaking a sweat. There is no risk management or generalship that will overcome those. These are not “risky” battles. Last year I was eliminated from a tournament in the semi-finals from a round one standard attack that had an outcome of .05%. Again you CAN NOT plan for these outcomes as they are far too extreme.
As you play more games you can get a feel for the dice and what should or should not happen (probabilities). You also can gauge how these affect your strategies as well. If you engage in a battle with say 80% favorable outcome that should leave plenty of you units left, and roll a stunning defeat that leaves your opponent with more units left that you should have; you should know that what you were on was the right path. LL completely changes the risk involved and I think is one of the poorest ways to test a strat. The Russian Triple in AAR is dicey as all get out with random dice but in LL it is an almost guaranteed success.
Going beyond the one “got diced” card mentioned above perhaps tell your group you are trying something and if any really whacked rolls show up ask for a re-roll. I understand these are fun games and not tournaments. A good sportsman opponent should allow you a re-roll because if it is THAT skewed it will be obvious to all.
Lastly I want to touch upon the dice themselves. Are you using the same dice? I have gotten sets of dice before that roll really skewed one way or the other. We have a few at my house that are not allowed as we know they roll consistently high in one case and consistently low in another.
-
Each country has it’s own dice and this player is the only one that rolls badly. I think it has something to do with how he snaps his wrists? :-P
-
I would suspect that set of dice in that case. Unless yall are using random sets. But if yall are using the same sets each time for each player I would recommend everybody taking his dice and rolling them several times and see how they are rolling. I am saying this because we have a set of blue dice we bought back in our AAR days when we had 3 players. These dice will roll 5s and 6s consistently. Getting anything else out of this set is pretty rare no matter who rolls them or how. They would make some killer Yahtzee dice though, they can spit up a 5,6 full house all night long.
-
This issue is more about how it feels, rather than what is. For a series of games, luck will even out, for most people. But A&A is a game which can last several hours, and sometimes decided by a single dice roll. Thats why it sometimes feels very bad to lose dice games. I play both LL and ADS, but the most important factor is if it is funnier with LL or regular dice.
It’s not so much about skills vs luck, but in a single game, if both players are equally good then it is more difficult to win a game in LL than regular dice.
-
I am copying this from another post i made, but basically here are 4 standard opening with Germany (with dice). Now, if you are playing LL, then each % chance to win on each individual battle goes up to around 100%, giving you a total chance to win also closer to 100%, which makes Germany’s opening moves ridiculous, and also discourages more conservative, less risky, playing. Isn’t it odd that by supposedly eliminating luck and dice, you are actually encouraging people to play more risky? Interesting ah?
My Heavy without Karelia:
Seazone 2 (1sub,1bomb,1ftr): 95%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (1sub, 2ftr): 86%
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 3tank): 98%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 99%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 34% win + 7% no uk left = 41% (this attack is optional)
Chance of winning all without doing Egypt: 72% (<- a strong opening without NOs)
Chance of winning all with Egypt: 30%My Risky with Egypt, without Karelia:
Seazone 2 (2sub,1ftr): 83%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (2ftr): 50% win + 15% no enemy left = 65% (optional attack)
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 3tank): 98%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 99%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank, 1bomber): 75% win + 5% no uk left = 80%
Chance of winning all without doing sz12: 59% (<- a strong opening with NOs)
Chance of winning all with sz12: 38%Super Risky with Egypt and Karelia:
Seazone 2 (2sub,1ftr): 83%
Seazone 6 (1sub): 40% win + 20% no units left = 60%
Karelia (1bombard, 3inf, 1art, 3ftrs) = 78% chance (ftrs: if you lose zero you have 89% chance winning, lose 1 ftr you have 68% chance winning, lose 2 ftr you have 35% chance)
Baltic States (4inf, 1art, 1tank): 98%
East Poland (1inf, 4tank): 99%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 1tank): 97%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank, 1bomber): 75% win + 5% no uk left = 80%
Chance of winning all without doing sz6: 49%
Chance of winning all with sz6: 29%IL’s Not Risky without Karelia and Abandon Africa:
Seazone 2 (1sub,1bomb,1ftr): 95%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (1sub, 2ftr): 86%
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 4tank): 99%
Ukraine (pulling 1inf and 1tank from africa: 3inf, 1art, 2tank): 100%
Chance of winning all: 74% (<- Strong opening with or without NOs, though Italy will never get its NOs)I believe that is pretty much all 4 different openings with Germany that people use, subject to slight modifications and subject to what you decide to buy as germany.
-
Since this is relevant to this discussion ill post it here.
Gnasape, when you gave me the LL rules on SBR i took them on blind faith that you got em from play tested and mathematically proficient sources. However it seems to me that base dmg for SBR’s should be 3 or 4 based on whether or not u hit on a d3, not a d1. If average SBR dmg was 3 1/6 then a d1 would be correct. But average SBR dmg is 3 3/6 so it seems to me that a d3, not a d1, should be rolled where a hit = 4 IPC dmg and a miss = 3 IPC dmg.
Change it up or prove me wrong friend. And hurry up with your turns! I swear u have the attention span of a gnat! Seems your only interested in a game for the first few turns then u wanna start another! GRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I told you when I researched LL in this forum, I found only a couple of games, and I requested multiple times to see if there is an official or a written rules for LL games. From the two or three games I was able to find, I put together the rules so we can play LL. As for SBR, I suggested changes but we had already played or playing four games!
It’s either 3 or 4 damage unless you want 1/2 IPC damage, I agree that d3 would work but I was looking at the damage 3 or 4 and missed d3 (which makes more sense: I admit I was wrong). I’m on vacation from this friday and won’t be coming back until 7/12/09. I have very limited connection, heck I have limited cell connection and no computer, this is from a borrowed computer and I don’t think they would appreciate me adding programs.
This is a great discussion on LL and I’ll ask again if there is any reference for conducting a LL game.
I can say with certainty that my friend Crispy does not have luck with dice (at least the server dice). It’s classic!
3 Russian inf vs. 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 2 ftr, 1 bmb, 2 bb shot (Japan)
Russia holds, Japan retreats with 1 ftr, 1 bmb!
Those brave Russian souls!
-
Oh, and my earlier calculations got me interested in some more, so here are some opening Japanese moves:
Typical Japanese Naval Opening:
Seazone 56 (2ftrs): 95%
Seazone 53 (2ftrs, 1DD): 90%
Seazone 35 (2ftrs): 95%
Seazone 50 (1BB): 94% + 3% mutual destruction = 97%
East Indies (1or2inf): 100%
Chance to win all naval btls: 78.5%Risky with Yunnan and Burma:
Philippines (2inf, 1tank): 81%
Yunnan (3inf, 2ftr): 98%
Burma (1Bombard, 3inf, 1art): 100%
Suiyang (4inf): 97%
Fukien (2inf, 1ftr): 98%
Chance to win all land btls: 75%
Chance to win all battles: 59%Risky with Yunnan and Burma and most of China:
Philippines (2inf, 1tank): 81%
Yunnan (3inf, 2ftr): 98%
Burma (1Bombard, 3inf, 1art): 100%
Suiyang (3inf): 90%
Hupeh (2inf): 67%
Fukien (1inf, 1ftr): 90%
Chance to win all land btls: 43%
Chance to win all battles: 35%Less Risk, Capture NOs first turn, India 3rd turn:
Philippines (3inf, 1tank): 94%
Yunnan (3inf, 2ftr): 98%
Kwangtung (1Bombard, 1inf, 1art): 100%
Borneo (2inf): 100%
Suiyang (4inf): 97%
Fukien (2inf, 1ftr): 98%
Chance to win all land btls: 87%
Chance to win all battles: 68.5%IL’s AntiRussia:
Buryatia (5inf, 1art, 1tank, 1ftr): 73% (higher if there isn’t 7 russian inf there)
Yunnan (3inf, 2ftr): 98%
Burma (1Bombard, 3inf, 1art): 100%
Hupeh (3inf): 90%
Chance to win all land btls: 64%
Chance to win all battles: 51%Using 59% chance for Japan, and using 62% for Germany (average), we come up with 36.5% chance that all axis t1 attacks will succeed (not including italy).
This isn’t great, but to be honest, the chance of either zero or just 1 attack failing, is pretty high. Japan can recover from failed attacks much much better than germany, so I prefer a riskier japan plus a less risky germany. However, if you are playing LL, you would be very much encouraged to run the most risky attacks you can for both Germany and Japan, and though I do not have time to run the percentages, I’d say you’d have a pretty high chance of winning all of them, like around 80% in total for axis. (resulting in a swing from 36.5% chance to 80% chance, which is why the game is so different with LL). -
I got most of my LL info from here: http://www.daak.de/indexe.php3 It is a German language website, but also has an English version. My computer already has cookies set for English, so when you go there, you will have to look for the button to switch it to English. It is on the left side under the Dicey Server login. There is a large black button that says “Click Here For English Version”. Once you are in the English version, click on the Rules tab and you will find a lot of info.
We just started a game where we used both and chose the higher results value. I think it worked out well. What we decided to do was, if you didn’t have at least a total value of 6, then you had to pick one method. i.e.: if you attack with a tank and an infantry, you would either have to roll 1@3 and 1@1 OR 1@4. If you did both, then you are essentially doubling your chances at hitting something because due to LL rules, you aren’t guaranteed a hit anyways, you have to roll in both situations.
SBR were conducted in the same way. If I did a SBR in Germany with two planes, the defending player could roll 2@1 OR 1@2, but not both. This does change strategy a little as you probably don’t want to go in with more than two bombers, but maybe I am less experienced and you never go in with more than two anyways. Also, another house rule we used was to calculate the SBR damage. We would roll two dice, add the total, then divide by two, rounding down. We liked this method a lot better as we felt it was more fair.
Preliminary Assessment: you can’t really play as if you were playing LL because there are some pretty good dice rolls. But no one really got upset at the dice rolls this time, because there was a minimum set on the number of casualties. For the most part, the results were the same with LL or dice. Only a few of the small battles were there any differences, and it was never more than +1. We haven’t had any MAJOR battles with massive stacks, but we will come back to it soon enough. Thank you EVERYONE for your input. The game is now more enjoyable for my group of friends, and I hope that someone gets something out of this thread that helps them make it more enjoyable as well.
Suggested Topics
