Wasn’t really talking about Balancing of it, just thinking about how it would look. I’d say EE would be Soviet because as you said, Stalin had annexed the Baltic Republics, and Eastern Poland, both of which lie in EE. Also when Looking at GER its bigger than Germany actually is because it includes the Western half of Poland, and Czech which at this point Hitler had Annexed.
No Luck Revised v. 0.1
-
Yea. I guess what we really need is a way to shave off those results which exceed 3 standard deviations while not allowing for auto wins just because you have 3 infantry attacking 1 infantry.
So no longer would you have 1 guy fending off the entire Russian army complete with the Russian airforce and armored divisions because he’s got unlimited bullets, found the one position no one can hit him at and figured out the entire Red armed services received no training and ahave no common sense to get out of the range of fire….But you’d still allow for 5 infantry to take out 10 infantry, 3 tanks with good dice.
Wonder how we can do that?
-
Yea. I guess what we really need is a way to shave off those results which exceed 3 standard deviations while not allowing for auto wins just because you have 3 infantry attacking 1 infantry.
So no longer would you have 1 guy fending off the entire Russian army complete with the Russian airforce and armored divisions because he’s got unlimited bullets, found the one position no one can hit him at and figured out the entire Red armed services received no training and ahave no common sense to get out of the range of fire….But you’d still allow for 5 infantry to take out 10 infantry, 3 tanks with good dice.
Wonder how we can do that?
Something like add up all the hit value and divide by 5 instead of 6, then roll the appropriate dice to count casualties.
Like - in LowLuck if you have 33 attack value, that’s 5 auto hits and 1/2 chance of a sixth.
For this, you divide by 5, so you roll six dice and get a hit on a 1-5 on each of those. You’d roll a seventh dice and get a hit on 1-3. -
Truth be told though… those rare battles are exactly that… RARE.
the 1 INF holding off 12 INF is so rare I have NEVER SEEN IT in one of my games… Classic or Revised.
Deal with the dice, and have fun GAMING! :-)
-
Yea, they are rare, but they still exist. And I’m trying to think of a way to make it fair and eliminate those situation but still leave it be a crap shoot if 2 attacking infantry will beat 1 defending infantry.
Maybe make a calculator givve you the % chance of X number of hits per unit type (Inf/Art being a seperate classification) and roll percentile dice to find out where on the chart you land.
You’d still have the chance of 1 infantry defending against 12, but the odds would be so diminished that it would probably be once in every 1000 years of games instead of
Currently 12 Inf attacking 1 Inf has 2 Guarenteed hits in LL and NL. In ADS they have a 99.97% chance of winning, giving that one infantry 3 chances in 1000 games to obliterate his opponents and, even if he dies, still maintaining control of the land.
-
The vageries of war…
“Point Luck” off Midway… not just a place selected that proved to be miracle positioning against an unknown foe, but the epitomy of war, and certainly war GAMING.
-
Yea, but this is a GAME, not reality. We’re not talking about telling the 3rd ID to surrender if they’re confronted with 12 IDs attacking them, IRL. We’re trying to remove ridiculous results from a game so that strategy can prevail, not luck.
You want a game of pure luck, play yahtzee.
-
It is not a game of pure luck, it is a game with a luck element of a minimal nature.
It is truly rare that luck lasts an entire game. And being able to counter good rolls, or deal with bad ones, is the mark of a skilled player.
Otherwise, you end up like Agent Smith… master of the best resutls that a SIM can spit out, with the moves and counters memorized, and each game being identical.
-
Yea, but I’m trying to only kill off the extreme results, not formulate the game into a game of Checkers or tictactoe.
Basically, I’m trying to invent a better widget.
-
Just write off that 1 in 1000 game. That is the easiest way to deal with Berlin falling to 1 UK INF :evil:
-
What have I started! :)
There is a place and time for all types of rules. The dice give A&A that extra mysterious element. To limit that amount of luck would change the game similiar to chess, but still hold a large amount of strategy. I am not fond of luck type situations and introduced these proposed variants as a simplified method to rid the game of luck, if the players want it that way.
Jen, keep in mind that you want to stay away from charts as much as possible. Rules need to be as simple as possible to be effective. “taking a 10” rule would allow people to take the averages in some situations. Even the full blown No Luck variant is somewhat too complicated, but easy enough with practice. I would like to see a way to kill off extreme luck, but LL might be the best choice.
Switch, it is easy to call A&A simply a game, and you are completely correct. Unfortunately, some of us poor unfortunate souls have a certain disdain for luck. We realish the competition and do not mind being beaten by good strategy, but hate losing to luck. Over time, we learn to cut our losses and remember that not every game will be so unlucky. We also learn to not throw our chances to luck. As a matter of course, different players have different tolerarances to luck.
The major point of this thread is to think of a method that will be satisfying to a multitude of people without changing the game. Luck is an important aspect of war to vary the game. I like no luck only due to trying to test out new strategies that would not be possible overwise. Thanks for the interesting dialogue.
-
The thing is, you almost NEVER lose to luck.
The mark of a good player is one that can deal with dice. And blaming dice on a loss is more likely the result of bad strat than of actual bad dice.
I have won too many “bad dice” games to blame the dice for my failures.
-
Switch, you’re completely correct. A good player can stack the luck in their favor fairly well. A good player is not going to lose that many games in the long run. My roommate relies a lot on luck and loses most of the time. I know it for truth, but still dislike luck. Though I slightly disagree about dice not losing a player the game. There are important battles that dice can sway that may lose a player the game. As a general rule, that does not always happen very much. Again, over 100 games, it will not happen much at all. Strategy is the most important, but any good strategy can be destroyed by luck. In a pickup game it may not be important, but tournament play is far more unforgiving of bad luck. Luck always depends on the opponent.
-
To be honest, the worst luck I have had in Tournament play is selecting a partner that decided to not complete the Tournament.
You are FAR more likely to run into trouble with partners who do not continue a game (for whatever reason), or a time default, or other real world issue that costs you a game, than you are to losing JUST because of bad luck.
-
An interesting way I just played a game was you add up all your attack strength and all your defense strength then roll percentile dice. If you happen to have 102 attack, then you get 1 hit and roll percentile to see if you get a second hit.
It sure made the game long and it completely changed everyone’s tactics!!! You still had a chance of 1 guy fighting off 99 attacking infantry, but there was absolutely no way 100 attacking infantry could end up with less then 99 survivors! :)
I’m not advocating this, I’d probably never play it again…something about large battles taking an hour and 3 beers to complete…but it was fun!
-
Bidding does not eliminate a game mechanic. Dice are factored into the game. Bidding and LL are not equal.
It is a strategic decision to attack with “enough” forces. In LL this is always 51%. In A&A, 60% may not be enough. Do you “risk” it??
Squirecam
Yet it changes the game somewhat just like LL.
Although with LL going in with a 51% advantage can still net you a loss on the battle. You tend to take more units to prevent a loss getting near a 70-80% winchance if you calculate it out. If you attack 3 countries with a 80% chance to win and lose all 3 it does not make your a poor strategist yet you can lose the game due to it.Attacking 1 transport with 1 fighter will net exactly the same amount of luck in LL as with normal dice. Attacking the same transport with 2 figs with LL will net you victory guaranteed with dice it is about a 90% chance.
But it is all personal preference but to understand both principles you should have played a few rounds with them i think to see if it really makes that much a difference.
You can deal with bad luck if you are attacking but on defence having bad luck can really cost you the game pretty easy. I like to see you explain how you would beat a player that rolls the first 2 rounds all 1-2-3 where you roll the first 2 rounds only 3-4-5. IF you are russia you wont even get to see round 3 on that situation. It is those few key battles that luck can make or break the game. The big WRus stack VS the Eeurope stack if the one attacking has good luck there or really bad luck you will be hard pressed to recover from it.
Origins 2006. Game where Bid was 2 inf Ukraine. USSR attacked and Germany was wiped with no hits back. German counter into Ukraine was also a failure. I won that game, by keeping a cool head and waiting for an opportunity.
Also, my example was losing 3 50-60% battles. Russia does not have enough forces to make 3 attacks at 80-90%. But choosing to make 3 50-60 attacks rather than 2 at 80% is a risky decision and it is the decision, not the dice that was bad.
Switch is correct. You lose due to bad decisions, not dice. Dice are just the easy excuse people cry about instead of themselves.
And I have played some LL games. And IMHO, it changes too many key decisions/battles and is not true A&A.
Squirecam
-
It’s extremely tough to write off those “weird” results when you consistently loose battles you have close to 90% chance of winning. Not only loose, but HORRIBLY loose.
-
Not only loose, but HORRIBLY loose.
i lol’d at typo. hawt.
Yeah, it happens, mostly with AA guns. 5 of 6 fighters lost over India, yuk. BUT, you have to be able to work with it.
That’s why I typically send 1 trns 1 fig 1 btl to Anglo-Egypt. The destroyer mostly gets killed without inflicting any casualties if you just send 1 trns 1 btl, BUT if it kills something, you lose a loaded transport or a battleship. SO you send a fighter too. It’s not enough that you have a huge chance of winning, you have to figure in the COST of losing, and play accordingly.
-
Hey, I just lost one myself. Yep, some bad dice at some key times. but the only reason those battles has baecome so critical to me was previous bad decisions.
I lost by my own mistakes.
That and I was flat out out played by my opponents.
Did the dice speed things up since they were NOT my friend that game? Yep. But did they change the outcome? Nope. in fact, I would have NEEDED a dice victory to pull that game off due to my cumulative errors.
-
Not only loose, but HORRIBLY loose.
i lol’d at typo. hawt.
Yeah, it happens, mostly with AA guns. 5 of 6 fighters lost over India, yuk. BUT, you have to be able to work with it.
That’s why I typically send 1 trns 1 fig 1 btl to Anglo-Egypt. The destroyer mostly gets killed without inflicting any casualties if you just send 1 trns 1 btl, BUT if it kills something, you lose a loaded transport or a battleship. SO you send a fighter too. It’s not enough that you have a huge chance of winning, you have to figure in the COST of losing, and play accordingly.
Nice easy example. Should the BB kill the DD w/o a loss. Yes, it should according to odds. But is it “risky”? Yes, Everone that has played this way has at some time or another lost the BB. Was it the “dice” or was it the “decision” ??
IMHO, it was the “decision”. Like you say, you bring the fighter to be “safer”.
Squirecam
-
Okay, but when you start deciding battles where you have less then 90% odds arn’t worth it because you’ll be wiped out start occurring in your regular strategy sessions, maybe it’s time to play LL for a while. Eh?
I mean of all the battles I’ve had, I’d wager 60% of them were complete wipe outs for me when I had significant percentages to win AND plenty of forces. (So no, it’s not a 2 vs 1 infantry thing. It’s more of battles where it’s 16 Infantry, 5 Armor, 5 Fighters, 1 Bomber vs 12 Infantry, 5 Armor, 3 Fighters and an AA gun. Which is 84% chance to win, 1% chance of mutual destruction. But for me that’s 15% chance to win, 1% chance of mutual destruction and 84% chance of getting whipped out and maybe killing 3 or 4 bad guys!)
Suggested Topics
