What I’m saying is that there is no reason at all that you would have a consistent pattern over dozens of games of always having good luck in naval battles, bad luck with your AF, good luck with your Inf, or whatever.
Dice is dice. They don’t know who’s rolling them or what for, and they always have a 1/6 chance of rolling any given number.
Honestly, LL ruins the game for me. I need a certain amount of luck. And, when it comes to naval engagement (and Mollari will support me in this) I get all KINDS of luck!
I would never advocate LL become the standard for tournament play, because I acknowledge the thrill of full luck and the intention behind it. I merely think that LL is an excellent strategic planning tool that helps you cut right through the crap of good/bad dice to see what your strategy is really like in the long run.
Yes, Ender, they always have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling any given number. Now, ask Mollari how often I engage him navally with an inferior force and win.
And I can give you numbers on my infantry consistantly scoring more hits then my fighters in small engagements. My fighters (except in naval campaign) couldn’t hit the broadside of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with a nuclear weapon in most engagements. But yes, the numbers are also skewed because I have many battles when my infantry out number my fighters and only few where fighters out number infantry. So there’s 2 chances for the infantry to hit and only one chance for the fighter to hit in MOST land battles for me. Still, that’s only supposed to be a cumulative 33% chance for the infantry to hit vs 50% for the fighter to hit. (Assuming only ONE infantry needs to hit for a hit to be scored, not that both have to hit.)
That’s why I say I have good luck here or there. Not because the numbers are any different. If the numbers were different,then I’d have good probability - that’s not the same as luck.
Well in the long run luck evens out…if you kept rolling those naval battles against Mollari you’d eventually find that things will even out.
@Bean:
Well in the long run luck evens out…if you kept rolling those naval battles against Mollari you’d eventually find that things will even out.
Hun, Mollari and I play roughly 2 games a week on average and I don’t think I’ve lost a naval battle to him yet. Army/Air Force I lose all the time to him (and I win all the time too.) Navally, I can’t remember the last time, if there was a time, I lost a naval battle to him. Unfortunately, battleships and aircraft carriers can’t take land!
Hun, I said in the long run. I’m talking hundreds if not thousands of games. There’s no telling when your luck will break, is there?
Hopefully my luck won’t break, it’ll just shift from Naval engagements to land engagements. :evil:
Yes dice can ruin your day.
But for me LL removes way too much luck for my tastes.
I feel risk management is part of the game.
So I think I’ll only enjoy half luck.
Requestable half luck is also nice.
And just in case I am confused, what does ADS stand for?
In our face-to-face games, we use a version of Low Luck we call Dice averaging.
…
Both attacker and defender can request a dice average. You can only ask for one battle per country turn (when attacking Germany could have 1 dice average battle, if attacked threee times by the allies, Germany could request dice average 3 more times on the UK, US, and USSR turns as a defender)
…
In the 7th round, and every 2 rounds after that, you get 1 more must roll card.
Well since you roll half the dice you should call it half luck then.
Low luck or dice averaging might be misleading.
I like it how you can request it. And the must roll card.
It adds another layer of strategy.
Sort of like telling your troops to do a regular attack.
@Bean:
Hun, I said in the long run. I’m talking hundreds if not thousands of games. There’s no telling when your luck will break, is there?
There is no telling.
If there is, then you were reversed-convinced by Jen on how luck works. :-D
ADS = Actual Dice Server
Craig, the “holy mary” aspect does make the game exciting, and yes, it does add spice to the game, but too much spice can, pardon the pun, make the game unpalatable. I agree that good strategy will win out over gambling with the dice in risky battles on average, but it’s becoming too frequent. Like I told the Commander, you need to play to outmanouver me, not outroll me.
And I like your setup Axis_Roll. It gives you a measure of reliability in a few of the more important battles but still retains the variability in the common trading battles.
The dice in A&A reminds me of backgammon and poker. When you play poker, you get both good and bad cards.
Same with backgammon, dice instead of cards. I played maybe hundreds of backgammon f2f games a while ago. I often got bad dice…
But my opponent beat me more than 50%, maybe 70% of all games. In poker you play 20 +/- games an evening, sometimes.
A&A can take as many hours as a day of work. 1-2 battles with skewed dice makes you loose the game.
This can happen 30% or more. A&A with LL is different eh? It’s more pure strategy. There is also a big part of strat
thinking in ADS but there’s less strat and more risk management, same type of risk management as in poker, backgammon and many
other dice games. I want A&A to be mostly strats, and less “how much do I bet on a house”.
One of my problems with ADS in A&A is that the game take so many hours to finish.
Strat thinking for me is also to calculate what units I should buy to help me win, and yes inf are boring, but infantry help
me win games. I want to think strats before and after making decisions, and also long term. LL is more depth like as chess.
In LL if stack kalia to early, or Ukr too early with Germany, then your stack get killed and you lose the game probably.
For some strange reason, it hurts my feelings less when I make mistake and lose, then I lose because my opponent got lucky.
And I learn a lot, usually, when I lose to better opponent in LL than if I lose to a better player in an ADS game, with average dice.
It’s also a greater reward for me when I’m winning in LL than in ADS, and I use both, although I shouldn’t play ADS games
because of my mental health… :-D
I like having the potential to strafe and obliterate the enemy encouraging me to stay and win. I also like being scared that my 40 infantry will ALL miss on the attack and the enemy will achieve near 100% accuracy.
As much as ADS users like to say that ADS is for the brave, they are at the same time the most cowardly because they know they don’t have long term tactics figured out - they either rely on good dice to win, or cry about bad dice when they lose. There’s just no objective reasoning. :evil:
Which is not to say that LL is superior, merely that some arguments in favor of ADS are not what they appear to be.
Normal rolling of dices (ADS? what? it means ADSL? :-P ) means more possible results. It means you have to think on more variables and more strategies. It means more thinking. Also, game is designed for rolling dices, not for low luck, so some balance issues can appear.
I think normal rolling dices is way better and more flexible, giving more possible strategies.
Exactly. You cannot go in and know for sure that 3 infantry and a fighter always wins with at worst 2 infantry and a fighter left. 3 Infantry and a fighter might lose in ADS.
Not so important in little battles. It’s the huge battles where you can run the numbers and attack with just enough to guarantee you win so you can keep the most behind to defend against counter attacks.
The more INF that are present in any given battle, the greater the probable difference between the LL and the ADS result.
In Europe that means a heck of a lot.
Why’s that Switch? I know the smaller the battle is the more variability there is in both ADS and LL, but didn’t hear that about more inf making a difference.
A lot of INF means a VERY BROAD bell curve for ADS. That means that even average fluctuation will be far greater than is normal.
In LL, 6 INF attacking is exactly 1 hit, no more, no less.
In ADS, the odds MORE likely that you will have 0 or 2 hits rather than 1 hit.
Now make that a stack of 30 INF…
You actually have equal odds in ADS of 0 hits and 10 hits, with those percentages being almost the same as 5 hits.
You roll one likely percentage and drop twice as many enemy as in LL, you drop an equally likely percentage and drop NO enemy.
A 10 unit shift in a single roll of the dice…
You play warhammer fantasy with metrical system or with inches? With inches, the horses run 3d6 inches and infantry, 2d6 inches. With metrical system, the horses run 8d6 cm and the infantry run 5d6. It’s common in inches, say, you get a 5 for horses and a 6 for infantry (horses catched!). In cm, it’s very difficult run 28 cm with infantry and catch the horses who’s average is about 28 cm. A joke in Spain is saying horses run faster in cm because they are spanish horses, thus faster than normal inches horses.
What I am saying is: more dices mean less variation from average. Roll 1d6. The average is 3-4, but is not rare roll a 6. Roll 2d6. Now the average is 7, but it’s more difficult roll extreme results as a 12. Etc. Remember, superfortress is a NA and make you wanting a 3 for 2d6 roll.
The more INF your roll, the flatter the bell curve. The flatter the curve, the more likely it is to roll above or below average.
