Thank you.
What's the consensus on a standard bid?
-
When you attack in ADS you generally make sure you have enough ground forces so that the defender cannot possibly hit your fighters. In LL you don’t have to do that.
-
What I mean Bean is that in my experiance LL players are les good at “risk management”. Ie they think a 70-ish% attack houkld always work, and when it don´t they get upset and in many cases don´t know what to do…
ADS players know thing like this happen, sure we will bitch and moan but we cn playe on better then a LL player.
Still this is in my experiance, it´s not writen in stone.
-
I admit, I bitch more then most when I get hit with bad dice. Especially on critical moves. But I’d still take ADS over LL any day and twice on Sundays.
-
@Cmdr:
What thrill is there in attacking a capitol with 20% odds and losing in LL?
It’s not uncommon to attack with a well over 50% on a capital, and still lose with LL. Maybe it’s the TripleA BC which is flawed. ?? Or you win with less than 40% on a capital attack. Shit happens in LL :wink:
-
@Bean:
Darth Maximus claims the exact opposite, that all strategies that work in LL will work in ADS, not the other way around.
ADS does not force you to build redundancy into your attacks. It certainly gives the impression of doing so, but if you build redundancy into every attack based on the idea that it will always turn out bad, you will be overspending forces and losing the game that way, IMHO.
@Cmdr:
When you attack in ADS you generally make sure you have enough ground forces so that the defender cannot possibly hit your fighters. In LL you don’t have to do that.
But you don’t have to do that in ADS either. You could, but if you are strickly playing odds, it is bad to get too carried away with the overkill aspect of ADS. In LL you can plan your attack perfect to not lose ftrs, but you should also not lose thoes ftrs in ADS. Now if you get bad rolls and lose the ftrs and then the game then just chalk it up to being one of those games you weren’t ment to win and move on. So in LL if you know 100% you can’t lose a ftr in a battle then great, but if that translates to only 70% sure you won’t lose a ftr in ADS, that is still a good battle and still a good strat. I’m sure there are plenty of players that would want that 70% win percentage in games (losing only the 30% due to you losing some ftrs in that key battle).
On the other side if you aren’t comfortable with the 70% in ADS, and wait until you get more overkill to bring it up to 80-90%, you are going to run into trouble when you run across more efficient players who will recognize that no matter what they do they’ll lose 20-30% of games due to dice, so they are going to take the 70% shot against you (before you can get up to 80-90%), thus when you play them over and over and over again 3 out of 10 times they may get screwed on dice and lose those ftrs in the ADS battle, but they are still going end up with a 7-3 record against you.
LL is great for trying out strats and working on efficiency.
However, with ADS you never really know if the strategy is good or did you get a favorable position b/c you rolled up in both Wrus and Ukr on R1.
For example, if you wanted to (using LL) you could test the various Russia 1 openings and pin point exactly when Germany has enough forces to move an stack Ukr and then determine exactly how long the UK/US have to get their shuck shuck going. So if the opening of Belo/Wrus means Germany can stack Ukr in Rd 4 (buying all land), but the opening of Ukr/Wrus means Germany can’t stack Ukr until Rd 5 then the Ukr/Wrus opening is better in terms of all land buys by Germany, and infact it will be better in ADS as well even though you tested it in LL. You could not say that if you just did ADS battles.
@Nix:
What I mean Bean is that in my experiance LL players are les good at “risk management”. Ie they think a 70-ish% attack houkld always work, and when it don´t they get upset and in many cases don´t know what to do…
ADS players know thing like this happen, sure we will b**** and moan but we cn playe on better then a LL player.
Still this is in my experiance, it´s not writen in stone.
True. Yes they’ll complain about that battle and maybe they can’t handle the after effects but they sould really focus on their overall win % which in this case will still end up to be about 70%.
Maybe the ADS player can comeback and win a game that they had bad dice in, but I’m guessing if you lose a crucial battle agains good players where the odds were so much in your favor that your probably going to lose the game anyway regardless of ADS or LL. I say this b/c a good ADS player should recognize that they just caught a huge break and thus not do anything to give the other player a chance to get back into the game, at that point you can probably wait and make sure that any future crucial battles are now 90-95% in your favor and not just 70.
I’m not advocated one over the other, I tend to prefer ADS it jsut seems a bit more fun, but I’ll certainly play LL. Although, I do find it extremely helpful to test any moves I make or possible strats in LL first.
-
Bean and DM are right, here. LL provides a good baseline from which to work and allows you to see where you may need to add or subtract forces in certain areas to reliably obtain your objectives in ADS without having to worry about your data being corrupted by radical dice swings.
Personally, I think people dislike LL less because it is inferior to ADS and more because they just aren’t very good at it. Some things in ADS don’t translate over and they just aren’t willing to learn the differences. They try to plug ADS strategy into LL and when it fails, they throw up their hands and scream “LL sucks!”.
LL is simply a variant of the game that focuses on strategy over the possibility of wild dice, nothing more. And I am going to reiterate myself. You can hate LL all you want. I don’t really care. But, all you are doing is limiting yourself. And that seems ironic seeing as how there has been an increase of people looking for more variety by playing FFA’s, Enhanced, and games with tech and NA’s.
-
-
lol
its just what you call strategy@Bean:
That is the whole point - it is used to throw out the extreme dice to see the strategy.
Bean is saying LL gets rid of most of the luck, hence shows strategy.
@ncscswitch:
But LL is NOT good for strategic modeling.
Results within 1 standard deviation are to be EXPECTED. LL basically removes that.
switch is saying LL gets rid of the luck hence its strategies are not necessarily relevant for a real game.
@Bean:
LL is not representative of ADS on the whole
Bean actually agrees too.
@Bean:
You’re basically accusing LL players of sucking at ADS because of some fluffy arguments about not planning for changes in the dice.
Bean refers to “strategy against luck” as just luck. Switch refers to it as strategy.
@Bean:
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.
Depending on the curve “average dice + good dice” could be anyway between 50-100%.
Can’t bank on the “long run”. One failure could cost you the game.LL strategies does not work for ADS games.
Analogy. Poker. -
DM,
That came across, to me, as a personal attack on people who dislike LL games. I know you didn’t mean it too, just letting you know it did.
Anyway, I’ve said it before, i’ll say it again, the game is completely different in LL situations. Russia has a much better shot at the triple. Russia should be getting Artillery > Armor, 3 defending infantry always gets a hit (vs ADS when they normally get NOTHING, or so it feels), and most importantly, 3 submarines always kill a naval vessel (except BBs) each round. If you don’t think that last is huge, you don’t realize the danger to America in KJF mode.
-
Anyway, I’ve said it before, i’ll say it again, the game is completely different in LL situations. Russia has a much better shot at the triple. Russia should be getting Artillery > Armor, 3 defending infantry always gets a hit (vs ADS when they normally get NOTHING, or so it feels), and most importantly, 3 submarines always kill a naval vessel (except BBs) each round. If you don’t think that last is huge, you don’t realize the danger to America in KJF mode.
Your argument has zero credibility since you go by what you feel. 3 infantry kill on average 1 unit in ADS as well - the times that they kill nothing is balanced out by the fact that they hit 2 or 3 at times. The difference comes in small battles when hitting twice is the same as hitting once if there’s only one defender left, but it still does not mean you wouldn’t make the attack.
-
Sorry Jen. You’re right, I didn’t mean it to if it did. My point is I think testing things out in LL is a great (and easy) way to learn things without the need of an opponent or the time required to play a PBEM game.
I have an Excel spreadsheet that can do LL battles and show outcomes. It is easy to adjust, and I usually have myself miss on 3’s but my opponent hit on 3’s giving me a slight worst case for LL and it is a really good way to guage how battles can turn out. You can really get a good feel for Europe using LL and see if you are really doing yourself harm by sending 2 inf a turn to Afr with Ger or if you are better off going all troops to Europe (after rd 1 egy attack). These are much easier to test in LL than ADS and you don’t need an opponent to do so.
I certainly agree there are differences such as artillary and to me it seems 4’s tend to be a bit devalued in groups in LL, and economics, ipc and unit count are much more important, but you can still use LL as a guide for planning since it is much easier to look 2-3 turns ahead than it is in ADS.
And I certainly wouldn’t want to bash ADS since I’ve been playing it almost exclusively for the last year. :-)
I think my last LL game against someone was over a year ago, but I like to test my own strats using LL, then adjust a bit for ADS.Depending on the curve “average dice + good dice” could be anyway between 50-100%.
Good + avg should be significantly greater than 50%.
If were talking bell curve, avg should fall between +/-1 std dev.
For example if I lose a battle that I had 55% chance to win, I wouldn’t call that bad luck. I may have come out on the “bad” end but it is still within acceptable results. You’re right it is certaily open to interpretation and how people define luck though.Now if you attack 2 inf, 1 ftr vs. 1 inf and both hit, is it really bad luck that the defender hit? I mean he is going to hit every third game. When I talk about luck, I think it is more of when a trn hits a lone bomber, which is about 16-17% of the time.
I think Avg results are anywhere from 25%-75% and the extremes are the outlaying top and bottom 25. (one in four or one in three games) So, good + avg to me means 75% of the games. Those are the games I really focus on trying to win.
Now, I’m sure some people will define it higher or lower, but avg should be more than just the 50% result. Otherwise, every time a lone defending inf hits, people are going to complain “oh I lost that game because the lone Russian inf in Kar hit on G1, you only had a 33% chance to hit. These dice just cost me the game!”
Which I think everyone here will consider a bit absurd. :-)
Now if that inf killed 5 infantry, 2 arm, and 1 ftr, now you have a complaint. :-D -
l
LL strategies does not work for ADS games.
Analogy. Poker.My allies strat is to secure Afr. US builds in sz 10. Hows that concerning ADS vs LL?
My overall strat with every country no matter what rules is to build more infs than other units. Is this a LL strat
or an ADS strat?These are my strats. I know of several LL players who use this strats as well.
According to tekkyy they do not work in ADS…. :roll: -
Lucifer, the difference is this:
Inf + Art > Inf + Arm in LL (Same attack punch, same cost.)
10 Submarines > 8 Fighters in LL (Less attack punch, but can only hit fleet units, which more then makes up for the slight difference in punch. Make them super submarines and they have MORE punch then fighters.)I’ve been working on a number of strats for LL. Most of them are recycled ADS strats that have bombed big time, but work just fine in LL.
-
@Cmdr:
as a personal attack on people who dislike LL games.
We’re not discussing who are the best people, LL’rs or ADS gamers?
Jennifer seem to think of Taliban and LL gamers in the same manner :?We play A&A cause it’s fun. How many play A&A for a living…?
If A&A is most fun with ADS, either because ADS feels right, or because you are winning more games with ADS,
then you use ADS. Same with LL. The reason doesn’t really matter.
For me, it’s not a big difference, related to strats, units etc.
I have asked some ADS players why they hate playing LL, one said that the fact that you cannot get more than 2 hits
with 6 defending infs drove him crazy. He should be able to get 6 hits.
For me it’s as easy as if I play allies, and Berlin is too light defended. Germany has units left to protect the capital,
but player forgot or made some other mistake. BC says UK takes Berlin with 4-5 units left, I’m using 3-4 ftrs.
The only way for my opponent to win then is if he gets lucky…I won the game but with ADS he could be saved by
destiny…! -
That’s about the only thing going for LL. You can set up your moves 5 game turns in advance if you know your opponent well. You can’t do that in ADS. You’re lucky if you can follow up with the start of game round 3 after Russia, England, America, Russian, England, America and Russia go.
-
@Craig:
If you happen to enjoy the game by playing it with LL, knock yourself out. :-)
Craig
If you happen to be blessed by the dice gods, then knock yourself out :)
The difference of dice outcome, and wins/losses, is totally different in a league and in a ladder ranking
than in a single game. If you can win games when you lose big and important 99% battles then you are really good.The dice is a huge factor in many games, even if many of ADS followers deny this.
The difference of a ranking and a single game is that a single ADS game often (less than 50%) is decided by one
or two important battles. Not so if you rank as nr. 1 or nr. 9 in a series of games, where most players have played
well over 20-30 games. This is the big difference between LL and ADS. You don’t have 70% win record just because
the dice gods happen to favor you over other players.
You can get 20 hits better or lower than average in LL games, add with some SBR, how much ipc is that.
You can still win if you lose 200 ipc to your opponent? In ADS games yes… :wink: -
@Cmdr:
Lucifer, the difference is this:
Inf + Art > Inf + Arm in LL (Same attack punch, same cost.)
Inf cost 3, art cost 4, 1 inf+1 art is 7 ipc?
Tank cost 5, 1 inf + 1 tank is 8 ipc? Is that same cost? -
It’s close enough. Stop nit picking
-
Then pick this nit Jen…
1 INF & 1 ART is 2 units with a total punch of 4 (both offense and defense)
1 INF & 1 ARM is 2 units with a total punch of 4 (Offense) or 5 (defense).1 INF, 1 ART is NOT greater than 1 INF, 1 ARM in LL.
They are equal on attack and the INF/ART is inferior on defense.Lastly, small scale battles such as this example are still ADS in LL.
It is the large battles where the difference in LL and ADS really comes into play.
-
So what is the consensus on a standard bid?
Suggested Topics
