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.
I ADS, you have to plan for both success and failure.
In LL you have to plan for only the LL result.
So, in a typical game luck will change, and the player that adapts better wins.
In LL, that is not true.
And I prefer to “improvise, adapt and overcome” :-D
So you either say yes, LL is useful for strategic modeling information, or no, it isn’t
.
I’m still not understanding your response. You’re not responding to me, you’re just continuing to show how they are different. Is LL useful or is it not for a strategic modeling tool? Is Darth Maximum correct when he says any LL strategy will work in ADS?
Generally the difference is only variation. Tactically it can be different. I.e. Germany is very strong in Ukr.
Russia + allies are stacking Cauc. Russia leaves 1 inf in Wru. Germany is trading Wru. How strong attack force do
you allocate to Wru with Russia, if Germany took Wru with 1 inf, 2 inf, 3 inf+art???
How much do use to be sure that G cannot blitz to Moscow with 14 tanks??? This is a big tactical issue in ADS.
Switch, do you agree with that an overall strat is as viable in LL as in ADS, as in KJF vs KGF?
Also if you’re testing a specific strategy, it is simply faster to do it in LL. According to your earlier estimate Switch, 4 games out of 10 don’t show strategy simply due to dice (you were saying you lose 2 out of 10 games due to dice and win 2 out of 10 due to dice, then the in between shows what kind of player you are). That’s too many games to throw out considering how long games can take.
The only reason I can think why Jen would avoid LL in KJF is because she wants to hide behind the dice - if bad, then can’t prove the strategy wrong, if good, then it’s valid because it gives her a win. There’s just no way to show how the strategy doesn’t work.
The variations make a big difference. With risk maangement reduces/removed the game is different.
So I think LL games are good for modelling strategies for LL games.
But is only marginal for modellings strategies for ADS games.
Unless you want to bank on average dice. (which the bell curve has shown to happen not as often as some player wish)
So the same strategy that is viable in LL might not be viable in ADS. The simplest example given so far is the loss of planes.
Unless you want to bank on average dice. (which the bell curve has shown to happen not as often as some player wish)
Average dice + good dice happens more often than bad dice. If either average or good happens, you’re in good shape. Therefore, if you bank on the average, you are in good shape in the long run. Since the bell curve is equal on both sides, what tips it in the favor is the average dice.
I do not know how one can really compensate/plan for bad luck. I consider this “psychobabble” whenever I hear Switch say it. The only example I can think of is the order in which you roll your battles, but otherwise if you always plan on something bad happening, you will be overspending units in battles in order to get the odds better. Or you will not attack. I do not see any such “planning for bad battles”; there’s just absolutely nothing you are doing to plan for China when you lose 6 infantry there and the American fighter survives.
I guess you could just stay in the game and hope the other guy makes a mistake or just go for a big battle and pray for dice, but that’s not much of out-maneuvering or a plan.
In low luck you can ensure destruction of the units you want at sea by having 3 submarines. So if the attacker comes at you with 4 fighters and a battleship, you might kill the defending fighters before the submarine because you KNOW that 3 submarines = 1 hit to a naval ship, where as the fighters allow the defender to chose their casualties between naval and air units.
In low luck you can attack with far fewer units then you would in an ADS game because you KNOW that your punch selected will win the battle with no chance of the defender winning, so why put the extra units at risk needlessly?
For instance, America has 2 Fighters and an Infantry in Russia. Novosibirsk is garrisoned by Japan and America wants to clear it out. In LL America can attack with all 3 units and be guaranteed that Russia can blitz in and out on their turn because there will be no defenders. In ADS America has a “good” chance of missing the defender with a 33% chance the defender will hit the attacking infantry. I say good because my fighter pilots seem to be blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to offensive combat. That means I generally have to bring 2 infantry and 2 fighters to guarantee I kill my enemy in 2 rounds or less. LL, not a problem! The two fighters kill the target, the infantry can absorb any hits the defender gets.
Changes the whole dynamic of the game from a real game of Axis and Allies to a formula. It’s like turning Chess into Checkers, IMHO.
No, playing No Luck would make it like chess. Which has been popular for a lot longer than A&A.
LL still allows for considerable variation in the outcome of medium and large battles.
LL is to ADS as Checkers is to Chess
@Cmdr:
It’s like turning Chess into Checkers, IMHO.
That’s a terrible analogy
Checkers has automatic kills, just like chess.
LL does not make AA checkers become AA chess.
LL turns AA Vegas~{ADS}(predicatable but not assured returns) into AA Money Markets (guarenteed returns with minimal fluctations)
You answered it yourself.
Not attacking is one of the main differences between LL and ADS.
That simply separates the good players from the pseudo-good players. The pseudo-good players will avoid good battles because they are scared of the possibility of the 20% or lower happening.
In LL you can prosecute all the battles you want without fear of some of them going poorly and putting you in a bad position.
Even I did fully agree with that statement (which I don’t, because there is variability in small battles; Ukraine for instance still ranges from 2 arm surviving to 3 inf 1 art surviving, a humongous difference), does that benefit one side more than the other? Only if LL unbalances the game would I abandon it.
but then they must make choices as to whether they want to attack, continue to attack, or retreat based on the full range of possible outcomes that might occur with the use of dice.
Sounds fancy, but it does not happen as often as you would think. If you really do base your decision on LL counting, then your decision to attack or not is only influenced in strafing attacks. In ADS you simply have to decide to retreat once the battle has already started which doesn’t take much thought either, because you are still initiating the same attacks (minus precise strafes, but you should still strafe in ADS, just with a little more thought about what to send).
That keeps coming back as the argument in support of LL. But it’s a flawed argument. ADS is vastly superior because of the swings of the dice. LL is just a good way to have a formulaic game with very little deviation from expected results. There’s any number of attacks I would do in LL that I wouldn’t in ADS because the outcome is all but guaranteed. Likewise, there’s chances I might take in ADS (defensively) that I wouldn’t in LL because I know the enemy WILL destroy my defensive force instead of the off chance that they might win, but get creamed by withering defensive fire (the same reason most GOOD players won’t attack if they only have a 52% chance to win in ADS but will in LL.)
