Oh, I ran those on frood.net at 10,000 attempts, all rounds of combat.
Csub/TripleA is kinda ridiculous, one unit per TT. Doable, but too easy to forget that’s the rule and get yelled at by your opponent.
You only say it’s ridiculous because you’re not used to it. Triple A represents a much bigger and I think more talented playing pool than this org site (I think the Csub authors are the most talented players I’ve seen as well). And the mindset behind it is so as not to drastically change the board so you can’t do things like triple stack Ukraine or Libya. Unrestricted allows for ridiculous things like double/triple stacking.
2 Artillery attacking 10 units to reflect ADS: 44% chance to hit once, 12% chance to hit twice, 40% to hit once. (3 and up is 8%)
1 Battleship attacking 10 transports to reflect ADS: 53% chance to hit once, 20% to hit twice, 22% to hit thrice.
So two units at 2 or less has a 44% chance to hit once and one roll at 4 or less has a 53% chance to hit once.
Significantly higher chance to hit with a punch of 4 in LL with two units then in ADS.
I don’t think you’re running the test right. Just run it for one round of combat. Rolling 2 dice at 2 averages out to the same as rolling 1 at four if you’re looking at one round of combat and average out the results.
I imagine you’ll change your strats a bit when playing ADS. I imagine you wouldn’t exposure your air units on a regular basis.
No, I always contest/take Afr with allies, never build in sz 55, I usually don’t buy fleet with Germany.
I will try to link the Jap navy with the German in med, if its doable.
I don’t buy IC in India with UK, no IC in sink with US.
Sometimes I would contest Afr with Jap, sometimes not. The situation on the map will decide what I do, not if it’s
ADS or LL.
These strats do not change weather I’m plying ADS or LL games.
Risking ftrs is a bad strat imo both in ADS and LL games :-P
In ADS Inf+Art would be two rolls at 2 or less. In LL Inf+Art is one roll at 4 or less. Much better chance of a hit.
If you’re fighting one unit, yes there is a better chance in LL. But that still doesn’t mean the you wouldn’t make the attack in ADS.
But if you’re fighting 2 units, the average results is precisely the same. 2 rolls at 2 can hit twice in one round (cannot in LL), which happens 11% of the time (1/3 times 1 /3). They both miss 44% of the time (2/3 x 2/3), which is more than the 33% in LL - but do you see, the extra 11% of the time where they both miss is exactly balanced out by the 11% of the time where they both hit. 11% of the time with 2 hits balanaced out with 11% of the time at 0 hits to 1 hit.
@Cmdr:
Yes, but we should limit the bid to what you see on this site. Which is unrestricted bids.
FIDA is just plain stupid. All it does is double the bid amounts.
Csub/TripleA is kinda ridiculous, one unit per TT.
It’s not ridiculous with 1 units pr. TT, but I actually agree that bids should be totally unrestricted.
FIDA bids (all cash?) just makes clear that the game is not balanced out :wink:
I don’t think there is really that much difference in 1 unit per TT bids and unrestriced.
You can still bid 8-9 to Afr/cash (1 inf Lib, 1 arm Alg), or trn to Sz 14 for ADS or
1 inf Belo, 1 inf (or rt/arm) Lib, 1 inf (or cash) somewhere else for LL.
But I honestly don’t think the 3 inf bid to Ukr is that big of deal. It might be annoying but it is beatable. IMO, It’s kind of like the 23 PE bid in Classic, you put all your eggs in one basket and if you fail in take Mos in 3 turns the Allies will win. It just isn’t a fun game. I think it is more of an intimidation play but once you see it 2-3 times it loses that effect.
I think a PAfr bid is the way to go, giving the the Axis the most possibilites to win, and in this case 1 per TT and unrestricted are equivalent since you are able to place 8 ipc in Afr in each case or get the extra trn in Sz 14.
A) Of course it’s silly in MY opinion. :P I can’t declare something silly for everyone’s opinion by fiat!
B) The test should be for all rounds of combat. Not just the first round of combat, since if you miss, you’d obviously keep going (assuming everyone missed and you didn’t get your buttocks handed to you.) So yea, you have a higher chance of hitting with 1@4 then 2@2. Granted, you cannot possibly hit twice in the first round with the 1@4, so? We’re trying to see which has the best chance to get ONE hit.
@Craig:
As for the CSub bid restrictions, I have spent enough gaming sessions arguing with Crazystraw (and Mighty Air Force) about their “fixes”. We have come to the understanding that we just don’t agree. :-(
I don’t understand that! (btw - CrazyStraw is my old avatar. I’m TJ Hoo… Mazer Rackham now)
I don’t agree to disagree!
You will submit!
You will relent!
You will be assimilated!
Dang, my frothing sems to b shrtg out my kebr
Jen, your original argument was that 1 INF & 1 ART was superior to 1 INF & 1 ARM in LL.
NOT TRUE!
In both cases it is a 4 that needs to be rolled to score 1 hit (comparing attacking values).
And they are not equal on defense either.
1 INF, 1 ART defends on a 4 or less for 1 hit
1 INF, 1 ARM defends on a 5 or less for 1 hit
Also, if both sides hit on the first round of battle, the 1 INF & 1 ARM ends up WAY ahead as both attacker and defender…
a single roll of 2 or less for the ART, versus a single roll of 3 or less for the ARM (50% increase in probable success) for both attack and defense.
You misunderstand, Switch.
I said that Inf + Art was superior on OFFENSE. The reason? Not the target number, the COST. You get identical chance to kill the enemy with Inf + Art in LL as you do with Inf + Arm. In ADS that’s not true anymore.
Inf + Arm in ADS has a 58% chance to score AT LEAST ONE HIT.
Inf + Art in ADS has a 55% chance to score AT LEAST ONE HIT.
You may think that’s insignificant until that time you attack with 100 Infantry and 100 Artillery vs 100 Infantry and 100 Armor. Then we’re talking a potential large number of hits.
However, in LL you have a 67% chance to score AT LEAST ONE HIT. (And no more then one hit either!)
Which is more skewed of a result? The 55/58% chance in ADS or the 67% chance in LL?
For attack value, Inf/Art is more cost effective than Inf/Arm, no matter how you roll the dice (or don’t :roll:)
Spending 56 IPCs on Inf/Art gets you 16 land units, with a total offensive punch of 32. (dPunch also 32)
The same spent on Inf/Arm gets you 14 land units, with a total offensive punch of 28. (dPunch of 35 though) This force is more skewed and thus keeps fighting better after the first round of casualties, however the skew is not as advantageous of the higher unit count of the Inf/Art force.
However, the Inf/Arm force is still superior IMO because of the mobility of the Armor units. Mobility can’t be accounted for in all the number-crunching, but it is a key aspect of the game. And it doesn’t change from LL to ADS. If the game was simply two territories fighting for control of two territories directly between them, Inf/Art would be the way to go. Unfortunately, A&A requires maneuvering. So you need mobility - force the enemy to defend multiple points, or retreat.
In addition, the Inf/Arm has better defense value. Since it’s overall a better combination, that’s what I prefer to load my TRNs with.
@Mazer:
(btw - CrazyStraw is my old avatar. I’m TJ Hoo… Mazer Rackham now)
Welcome back
We’re trying to see which has the best chance to get ONE hit.
Yet again….so what? If you’re in a big offensive war, you’re not trying to get one hit. In which case ADS averages out the same because it can hit twice. If you are sending 1 inf + 1 art against 1 inf, the odds are indeed higher in LL, but so what? It’s still an attack you would consider in ADS, and it’s still a battle you can easily lose in LL. It does not drastically change the game, and even if you think it does, either side can purchase artillery, and generally both Russia and Germany both do.
Let’s say Germany averages three attacks a round. (Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine, for argument’s sake.)
In a ten round game, that’s 30 attacks. Or, roughly, 30 Infantry + 30 Artillery or 30 Infantry + 30 Armor. That’s a difference of 30 IPC in cost (+6 Infantry + 4 Artillery!) and you can get away with that in LL because the massive increase in hitting ability already granted to you from the very nature of LL is the same regardless of if you are using artillery or armor to accompany your forces. (Not to mention you take a 50/50 battle and make it a 67/33 battle meaning you have much better odds of taking the land in one round then you normally would.)
If you want to discount that with flowery logic, that’s your prerogative. But let’s not try to pretend that LL is the same as ADS only without the extremes. It’s not. It forces battles that would be in doubt into absolute certainty by skewing the bell curve so that the center encompasses more of the extreme results and shrinking the extremes.
Guess what. 2 Attacking Fighters miss A LOT. But not in LL. In LL they ALWAYS get a hit. 6 Attacking infantry get killed off by one defender sometimes. But not in LL. in LL they ALWAYS kill the solitary defender in one round.
Thus, it is NOT the same game. If I wanted to play risk, I’d play risk. The map is cuter, and those little horsey guys are absolutely adorable.
No one’s saying it’s the same game. But the important differences between Art and Arm are not greatly affected by the switch to LL. Cost / unit count per IPC remains the same, skew remains the same, mobility remainst the same, TRN capacity remains the same.
“Flowery logic”. Pah!
If you want to discount that with flowery logic, that’s your prerogative. But let’s not try to pretend that LL is the same as ADS only without the extremes. It’s not. It forces battles that would be in doubt into absolute certainty by skewing the bell curve so that the center encompasses more of the extreme results and shrinking the extremes.
I do not want to repeat myself for a third time. LL has a LOT of uncertainty. 1 inf 1 art is not guaranteed to win against 1 inf. Not at all. Where’s this absolute certainty you speak of? Since when did 1 inf + 1 art have a 100% hit rate?
Do I have to point out again that attacking the baltic has the exact same range of results, from 0 planes living to all 3 living? Or that attacking a lone tran with a lone bom has the same results? Or that many standard attacks have the same range of variation minus the extremes?
In a ten round game, that’s 30 attacks. Or, roughly, 30 Infantry + 30 Artillery or 30 Infantry + 30 Armor. That’s a difference of 30 IPC in cost (+6 Infantry + 4 Artillery!) and you can get away with that in LL because the massive increase in hitting ability already granted to you from the very nature of LL is the same regardless of if you are using artillery or armor to accompany your forces. (Not to mention you take a 50/50 battle and make it a 67/33 battle meaning you have much better odds of taking the land in one round then you normally would.)
But what the heck, I guess the German fighters disappeared and every single battle you are using arm/art. No.
@Ender:
No one’s saying it’s the same game. But the important differences between Art and Arm are not greatly affected by the switch to LL. Cost / unit count per IPC remains the same, skew remains the same, mobility remainst the same, TRN capacity remains the same.
“Flowery logic”. Pah!
Really? Cost/Unit Count is the same between Inf/Art and Inf/Arm? You get a discount on your armor, or you just paying too much for your artillery?
Really? Mobility remains the same? Your armor cannot move two spaces? Or you have trains to move your artillery around?
@Cmdr:
@Ender:
No one’s saying it’s the same game. But the important differences between Art and Arm are not greatly affected by the switch to LL. Cost / unit count per IPC remains the same, skew remains the same, mobility remainst the same, TRN capacity remains the same.
“Flowery logic”. Pah!
Really? Cost/Unit Count is the same between Inf/Art and Inf/Arm? You get a discount on your armor, or you just paying too much for your artillery?
Really? Mobility remains the same? Your armor cannot move two spaces? Or you have trains to move your artillery around?
Re-read what I wrote. The DIFFERENCES between Art and Arm remain the same. Whether ADS or LL, your tanks are still more mobile, more expensive, etc.
But in ADS your tanks hit 50% of the time while your artillery hit only 33% of the time. Meanwhile, in LL those individual ratings are meaningless, only your over all punch. Thus, the game is significantly DIFFERENT from ADS. Which is the entire POINT of the evaluations to begin with.
I don’t care if you use 1 Inf attached to 1 Art or 1 Arm, or if you use 10 Inf attached to 10 Art or 10 Arm. The results are different (significantly higher for LL than ADS) which means that the strategies employed are NOT the same. (Well, they could be, if you CHOSE to make them the same, but realistic players are going to adjust their combat forces, their purchases and their moves accordingly to maximize and exploit LL. Moves, purchases and combat forces they may not have chosen in ADS.)
@ncscswitch:
Welcome back
I’m back with the nerds, where I belong.
:-D
