Give me a few months and I may be ready to play you again in Classic.
But sometime in the not too distant future, we have a Revised game to play :-)
I agree with the position that SBR in LL is very different from SBR in ADS.
As DM explained, if you were to conduct 6 SBRs in LL and 6 SBRs in ADS, the result would be what you would expect given the respective natures of each dice system: in LL you would lose roughly 15 IPCs and cause roughly 18 IPCs of damage, whereas in ADS you would lose roughly one bomber (with larger variance than the attackers possible loss in LL) and cause roughly 18 IPCs damage (again, with larger variance than the defender’s loss in LL).
The problem lies in the fact that no one does 6 SBR raids in a single turn. So although one sixth of each of the above results is what you get in the respective dice systems, and conceptually they may make sense, it amounts to something very different. In ADS, doing an SBR amounts to essentially a “reverse lottery” : a relatively good payout the majority of the time, which is what you expect, and a really bad payout in rare situations. LowLuck gives you a really minor good payout pretty much all the time. Or at least, this would be the situation if 1 IPC in the hands of each country is equivalent, but all experienced players know that 1 IPC in the hands of Russia or Germany is worth a lot more than 1 IPC in the hands of any of the other powers. However the survival of the bomber is worth a lot more to the other powers. So there are a number of factors involved, the net result being that SBRs end up being very different.
Of course, different does not equate bad. After getting used to it, I don’t mind nearly as much now.
But as so many folks have said… SBR for the typical player is a BAD move most of the time. It is used only rarely, and then only in a special circumstance such as to weaken Russia’s build the round before the German or Japan hammer falls, or likewise to weaken Germany’s build before the US and UK hammer falls.
In those cases, the 1-6 chance of losing a bomber in order to prevent 2 INF (on average) from being built is a good risk. Almost all of the time, your bomber lives, your enemy builds 1-2 fewer INF, and you use the BOM again for the main assault.
Most high grade players will not do repeated and sustained SBR’s. Which means the average over 6 SBR’s is meaningless… few players will ATTEMPT 6 SBR’s in a single game.
BUT… with SBR’s being “free”… meaning they cost the attacker no bombers and guarantee the loss of income to the nation attacked, SBR’s become a viable strat. And here I point to my game with Avin. Repeated SBR’s of Germany, trading UK’s income for Germany’s income, but still leaving a net effect of the US untouched. And when the final raids on Berlin were set, the Allies had a LARGE number of Bombers to provide offensive punch to the attack since they were NEVER at risk while destroying Germany’s income.
And that simply is wrong. It sets up a situation where the BEST strategy for teh Allies is a large number of US and UK bombers to elliminate Germany’s builds, while the Allies still have income left after bombing, and then use all those bombers that were unkillable for X rounds to lead the attack on Berlin.
It is a BULLSHITE strategy that is only feasible in LL, and it is also pretty much a guaranteed win for the Allies, even with a sizable Axis bid. Who cares if Germany takes Africa if you can bomb them to zero income after just 3 turns of purchases, and then have the US and UK spend 2-3 more turns building TRNs and land units to land in Europe against only the forces that Germany has left alive from their starting units and G1-3 purchases (since they have not been able to BUY ANYTHING since G3 due to SBRs). If Russia was played well at all THEY have enough offensive punch to kill Germany quickly once Germany is bombed to ZERO income starting in Turn 4 with unkillable bombers.
Switch you have to realize that if what you’re saying is true, then good players would simply not win with Axis in LL with bids below 25 or 24 against other good players. But it remains a fact that they do, and for all your argument you put up, you simply cannot contest that fact.
Switch, with a large bid, if the Allies just bought bombers for the first two rds, you would concede too much territory and economy to the Axis which causes a few problems:
1) As soon as the Axis IPC hit the 74-73 adv, then SBR’s would be in there favor. I believe the Axis do start out with the numbers adv in miliatry units. Esp with bid of 22-23 (or more). Well at least Germany.
2)Â You leave yourself open to an M84 lunge by Japan.
3) With the IPC Adv the Axis (Japan) can employ the strat to Russia. 40 IPC to 22, who has the adv there?
We may have to play this one out Darth…
A Russian picket and turtle to slow Japan, while also providing the means to prevent Germany’s income increase from occuring in Europe… Allied BOMs and a few TRNs…
As you have said before, I don;t think Japan can move that fast…
I’ve learned that the japs need to exersize a little patience!
Darth taught me that too MD.
That is why I am unsure that Japan can put a monkey wrench into an Allied SBR strat…
Well, Avin’s bombing the hell out of germany and I’m bombing the hell out of russia. Let’s see what gives!! :-o
So far, I’d say the bombing has been about equally damaging to both sides in our game, MD. Note that I sacrificed a larger UK transport/unit build in UK2 to buy a bomber on UK1: had you done something similar with Japan you could have had an extra bomber against Russia as well. Next round I don’t think Russia is going to have hardly any money to spend at all in fact (on R5) given the production you’ve reduced me to plus the bombing.
So switch, are you saying that you’re willing to play LL again to contest your claim?
@ncscswitch:
We may have to play this one out Darth…
A Russian picket and turtle to slow Japan, while also providing the means to prevent Germany’s income increase from occuring in Europe… Allied BOMs and a few TRNs…
As you have said before, I don;t think Japan can move that fast…
They can’t move that fast to TAKE Moscow but taking territories is different.
Playing for Moscow and playing for M84 are different. I don’t particularly like M84 but it is still and Axis option.
In two games with Avin, without worrying about an Allied bombing strat, he came very close to being able to make an M84 lunge with Japan, even though Mos wasn’t really in jeopardy and I controlled the middle of the board, and in another game it was also a real possibilty when he took HI on J1 but I re-took Hi with the US early and delibrately tried to prevent it him from even having a shot at M84.
I’m not saying M84 would be guaranteed or anything, just that I think you are taking your one game as an example which I don’t think is fair.
I think G1 made some questionable moves that ensured the Allies an advantage and then the SBRs later compounded the early moves.
Consider a 22 bid with 5 inf Afr, 2 inf Man.
Ger will be plus 4 in Afr after G1, J will be plus 3 (Chi, HI)
Now in rd 2, Ger will probably be able to pick up 3 more in Afr (lose Fin) and Japan will get SFE (possibly Ind or go directly to Aus from Hi)
Now G is up about 5-6 (loss of Fin), Jap will be up 6-7 (Chi, SFE, Ind or Aus)
So after Rd 2 the IPC Chart looks like 77-70 Allies Adv.
But in rd 3 the Germans should still be at about +6-8 overall (with most of Afr or ME), but again, Japan will take Ind or Aus (possibly NZ), and possibly Sin and Japan will be about +10.
Meaning the Axis now have the IPC adv or are close enough to it.
Granted Moscow is in no threat, but in rd 4 Japan can then lurch to Kaz, Eve, Yak, Ala, and Pan or Mex (from nz). And that puts them very close to M84.
It doesn’t matter if the Japanese troops on the East of Russia can be obliterated by the Russians b/c they may never be able to go IF the US CAN’T prevent the M84 on their turn.
The other thing about going for M84 is that Germany can theoretically take advantage of the fact that Russia doesn’t get to go again either: Germany can split forces to UKR or maybe even CAU fully knowing that if Russia got another turn their units would be horribly strafed or taken, but does so anyway because the UK or US may not have enough units on the continent to do that attack themselves and therefore Germany claims those IPCs toward the Axis.
I would agree with the sentiment that winning by M84 is not as satisfying as a normal victory, but I would never play without the option of a M84 victory as long as I was Axis because of the fact that merely by THREATENING M84 you can get the Allies to change their strategy slightly, often to the advantage of the Axis player. And while winning by M84 may not be satisfying, winning because you came very close to M84 several times and the Allies were forced to make attacks or defent territories they would not otherwise have done, which allowed you to secure the lead, IS definitely quite satisfying.
I definitely agree with that.
When you took HI in our game, it certainly changed some moves of mine.
Also, my comments about M84, I mean I generally don’t delibrately go after it at the start of rd 1, if it is given to me I’ll take it, and for no other reason then to shift the IPC adv to my favor.
I usually feel if I can get close to it say 78-80 for a turn or 2 (or more), then the game is over regardless. It may take more time, but I think I can lean on people once I have the IPC lead and really start to press the action.
My final thoughts on this matter:
I generally love the idea of eliminating extreme dice rolls. However in the case of sbr, I LOVE extremes. I love seeing my opponent almost have a heart attack when I send 2 bom and roll boxcars. I love seeing my opponent watch me almost have a heart attack when he rolls snakeeyes on the aa fire. Sometimes extreme is good and fun!!!
And, as I found out in my only LL game, the extremes are NOT elliminated. They still exist, even on sizable battles.
And that is my main argument against LL. It does NOT prevent dice fracks, while at the same time forcing the game into the same old predictable strats that AS was so fond of.
Personally, I simply like keeping it more honest and letting the dice fracks be a real consideration, and happen to everyone, instead of just being an oddity that only happen once in a game. And of course getting rid of the whole SBR fiasco for all of the above (and in previous threads) reasons.
I happen to like dice better too.
Low luck creates too many “risky” moves into “non-risky” moves. You will know that Ukraine will be a safe attack if you have X,Y & Z. Two tanks will never lose to 1 infantry. But in dice, these things are not a “given”.
I think it takes more strategy to “overcome” bad dice than it does playing “A&A chess”.
BTW, normally when people lose, it is not because of bad dice. Most people lose because somewhere they made a mistake. Dice crying is just the excuse used.
But surprisingly, the biggest whiner I ever played against cried in a LL game. Imagine that…
Squirecam
Actually there are dice in lowluck. Just ask Avin, who in the first round of our game got seriously “dice fracked”. But to his credit, he didn’t whine.
I know there is dice. It’s still “chess-like” to me.
Squirecam
chess is good!!!
chess is good!!!
When each side has equal units, chess is ok.
A&A sides are not equal.
Squirecam
