Thanks to everyone for clearing that up. :)
What's the consensus on a standard bid?
-
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.
-
And you can always compound that fluctuation over a 5 round battle (and there are quite a few large battles that go a full 5 rounds) and you can see a huge shift in out comes.
-
But what does that actually mean? Because it fluctuates evenly on either side, it’s not as if it changes your decision to attack. It just means the result will be more variable, meaning more fun, but it rarely (and shouldn’t) affect your unit count/dice count to attack.
-
No, it means if you score well in round 1, then you continue to round 2 and probably score better then you otherwise would have and that can compound in your favor.
Likewise, you could get a bad round and recover later.
-
Cascade Failure…
It is common in ADS, impossible in LL.
-
Is cascade failure a good way to evaluate strategies? No. I simply advocate LL as a way to cut to the bone of the theory at hand instead of having to deal with luck polluting the strategy. Of course ADS should be in tournaments, it’s just not a great way to look at strategies in the short run.
-
The larger the battle, the more likely cascade failure.
-
It doesn’t matter, cascade failure doesn’t happen to one side more than the other, it could happen to the defender or attacker
-
Right, it CAN.
That means that in ADS you have to plan for the possibility of it.
In LL you do not have to make such plans.
LL is a completely different game as a result.
-
That means that in ADS you have to plan for the possibility of it.
No, you don’t. You don’t know whether the cascade will favor or detract from you. You plan the attack based on the same unit/dice count. If you get higher, then you’re more likely to win. If you get lower, then you’re more likely to lose. If you’re average, you should also be winning if you’re making the right decisions. That’s why you should base ADS attacks on the same principle as the average, because if you get average or better you’re in good shape, which combined happens more than bad luck. You cannot compensate for bad luck except to hope for better luck or a mistake.
-
No.
In ADS, you HOPE for average or better, you plan on less than average.
And that my friend is the difference between ADS and LL.
-
I’m not sure if you’re actually arguing against me or not. Here’s the argument again - LL is a superior strategic modeling tool, because every game you play is valuable data, whereas in ADS you have to toss out 4 out of 10 games due to dice alone. I don’t want to play double the games in order to figure out how the strategy is actually working because it’s simply polluting to have extreme results, and even more so if those extreme results are early on.
There’s no reason to show me the difference between ADS and LL. I have already said I acknowledge as much - not for your reasons, but because you can strafe with too much precision. Still, the game is not nearly as different as you make it out to be, and it is still a quicker way to evaluate a strategy. So you either say yes, LL is useful for strategic modeling information, or no, it isn’t. LL is different- and that is why it’s quicker/better at finding out strategies instead of having to toss out games where you didn’t win in W. Russia or the UK BB survived.
Suggested Topics
