US#1 Buys - ROCmonster's Video

after playing nearly 1200 games of axis and allies I can play against myself unbiased. As I said I believe the allies are going to win in my game and I playing both sides to perfection (or at least I believe I am). Retreating from queensland didn’t do much to harm the allied efforts in the pacific. Eventually Japan is going to crumble.

Here is the link for the first video. The other 3 are on my channel. I will try to get 1 up a day, but the vids take at least 2 hours to upload to youtube…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_eswACuC9w&list=FLz-Jb8pQPE4-IGJggi-ycxA&index=1&feature=plpp_video

I am using low luck as a base. I don’t want to use dice and then get horribly diced and something turn out differently than what a normal game would be. I am trying to do a basic overall strategy and the best way to show that is just through low luck. Granted dice and Low Luck are different games because you can know the basic outcome of a battle before it happens, but from a teaching standpoint which is better? To show what would happen most of the time, or showing what could happen in dice? Trying to teach newcomers to the game you don’t want them to see that 2 infantry and a fighter looses more times than not to 1 infantry because the dice are against you now do you? I am trying to teach the correct mechanics overall. That is my main basis for these videos. To teach good mechanics to new players or even intermediate or advanced players. We are all trying to get better at this blasted game. My goal is just to try and help some players along.

I don’t completely understand this “Low Luck” thing you use, but I don’t think it is right.  My group ONLY goes by the dice roll.  Yeah, it is frustrating to attack with 10 tanks and only get 3 hits, or take 6 bombers on an SBR and have the defender get a lucky roll of 4 ones with AA fire, but that’s just the nature of the game.  That’s what gives the game it’s variable outcomes.

The way I understand it, this “Low Luck” involves some sort of averaging system where you apply hits without actually getting them due to some sort of average result.  That just sounds to me like you are taking any sort of variability out of the game.  If you can just say “Well I’m attacking these units with these units and by low luck rules, I win the battle with this much left” then where is the fun in that?

Feel free to explain Low Luck in more detail if I am missing something.  It’s been a while since someone else explained it to me.  Frankly, I still think rolling the dice is the only way to play the game.

Low luck is basically a tool to use to test out certain strategies. When testing an overall strategy it is best to use low luck because on the average of 1000 games Low luck will best way to test how this average of a 1000 games might turn out. Say you roll 100 tanks in dice you will get many different hits. Say you rolled that same 100 tanks a 1000 times. You should get around 50 hits. Maybe plus or minus 2 or 3. Low Luck just says that we take the average (what the roll should produce). 2 tanks=1 hit. 6 infantry attacking=1 hit. Granted this does not allow for much variance, but take 2 infantry and 1 fighter attacking 1 infantry. Sometimes the 1 infantry will actually defeat the 2 infantry and 1 fighter and the fighter must retreat. Low luck still has its variance, btu the main point of Low luck is to test out theories as I will try to get back on point. You want to see what a certain strategy would look like if you played the same way a 1000 games. The best way to do this is Low luck since there is a very low variance in the amount of hits each side will recieve and give. I agree that the best way to play the game is dice, but if you want to play your best game possible all the experts will agree play Low luck for at least 10 games and you will get a good idea of what a good overall strategy might be. Give it a try. It is how I have become such a good player, though I played around 300 games of Low luck and around 900 games of dice.

Oh sorry I don’t think I answered your question on exactly how Low luck works. Say you have 2 infantry and 1 fighter attacking 1 infantry. The attacker has 5 points (1 point for each infantry=2+3 points for fighter). Every 6 points is an automatic hit and you don’t need to roll a dice. The defender has 2 points since infantry defend at 2. You always roll the rollover amount. Since the attacker nor the defender gets any automatic hits the most hits you can give or recieve is 1. The attackers will roll at a 5 or less for a hit, and the defender a 2 or less for a hit. Say the attacker rolls a 6 first round and the defend a 2. Now there is an infantry/fighter attacking an infantry that is still alive. Now you attack at a 4 when rolling on attack and the defender still at a 2. It is sort of difficult to explain without showing it through dice.

Okay, I understand it a little better now.  So every 6 hit points is an automatic hit against enemy units (2 tanks, 3 def inf, 6 att inf, etc.).  Then any numbers under 6 you still roll dice for.  Say you attack with 7 tanks.  This would give you an automatic 3 hits and you would roll dice for tank #7, right?
So in your example of 2 inf, 1 ftr attacking 1 inf,  you just roll 1 dice for the attackers and try to get a 5 or less?  Instead of rolling 2 dice for a “1” and 1 dice for a “3”.  And the 1 defending inf simply rolls 1 dice for a “2”.  This doesn’t seem fair to the defender.  It’s much easier to get a 5 or less with 1 dice than it is to get a 1 rolling 2 dice or a 3 or less with 1 dice.
I do understand what you are saying about this method taking some of the “chance” out of it.  So you say this will help you observe and test out strategies better?  I guess I can see that now.  Like maybe you want to check out different scenarios for Sealion or Barbarossa to see which tactic would likely be more successful in terms of buildup, what round to attack, what units to commit, etc.
I think this would be good if you were simply testing out strategies but when you decide to sit down and really play a game with people, I still think regular dice rolling for each unit is better.  Instead of 3 hits and 1 dice roll for those 7 tanks, see if you can get 6 or 7 hits.  OR, see if your opponent with the 7 tanks rolls and gets 1 hit.  More exciting that way.
One thing that we do to save a little time and wear and tear on the dice is when there is a huge overpowering force attacking a relatively small defense force (1-3 units or so), we just decide the defenders are going to get hit and just roll for them to see if they take any attackers with them.  In fact, we just had something like that in our current game.  A large US force of tanks, 10-12 or so, attacked Poland which was defended by 1 German tank.  We just rolled for the German.  Poor guy didn’t even get a hit.
I think I will try a game of low luck very soon.  I am very curious about it.  So every 6 is a hit (6, 12, 18, 24, etc) and you only have to roll for the leftover, right?  If there is 5 left over, you just roll 1 dice for 5 or less, right?  Should make things go a little quicker.

Sounds like you have it right now kmp7765. Yes, if you have 5 left over, you roll one die at 5.  Example 3 tanks and 2 Inf attacking (33+21=11) get one automatic hit and get a second hit if they roll a 5 or less.

I agree low luck is a good tool for testing strategies.  One thing to watch out for though, if you are testing strategies that you intend to use for real dice games later, is to not get too hung up on making sure every battle is 100% efficient.  In low luck you can calculate exactly what you need to win a battle.  But in real dice you don’t know for sure, so in real dice you sometimes over-kill just to make sure you win.  Another thing to watch out for is straffing.  In low luck, since you can determine within a hit on either side exactly how many hits will be dealt, a strafe attack is very safe.  You’ll never end up accidently killing a target you wanted to strafe due to lucky attack dice, or end up losing out on the exchange due to lucky defensive dice.  So you probably want to stay away from a lot of straffing attacks as using a lot of them could warp your perceptions of how a effective the overall strategy would be in a real dice game.

@knp7765:

So in your example of 2 inf, 1 ftr attacking 1 inf,  you just roll 1 dice for the attackers and try to get a 5 or less?  Instead of rolling 2 dice for a “1” and 1 dice for a “3”.  And the 1 defending inf simply rolls 1 dice for a “2”.  This doesn’t seem fair to the defender.  It’s much easier to get a 5 or less with 1 dice than it is to get a 1 rolling 2 dice or a 3 or less with 1 dice.

Low Luck favors both the attacker and the defender, as long as you have more than 1 unit present. Single units facing 2 or more units will always be at a disadvantage, in the example above the chance of the attackers missing the 5 roll is 17% with LL, while the odds of missing 1 hit with 3 regular dice rolls are 35%. If the defender had 2 infantry his chances of missing with a single roll of 4 or less on LL are 33% while with regular dice they are 44% for both rolls missing.

No worries grasshopper there really wasn’t much left to talk about. I am on R7 in my game right now and US is about to push Japan out of phillipines, but they can’t hold it, yet.

Well, nobody really debated the best US purchase anyhow… maybe it was worth killing…  :)

@Young:

@theROCmonster:

No worries grasshopper there really wasn’t much left to talk about. I am on R7 in my game right now and US is about to push Japan out of phillipines, but they can’t hold it, yet.

**IT’S ROUND 7 AND THE AMERICANS ARE JUST KICKING THE JAPS OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES NOW?

MY GOD MAN!! WHAT HAVE YOUR YANKS BEEN DOING, AND WHERE THE HELL HAVE THEY BEEN DOING IT?

DO YOUR AMERICANS REALIZE THAT THEY ARE GIVING UP A $5 NO EVERY ROUND THEY SPEND SURFING IN SYDNEY?**

They were probably going “oh sh!t!!!” and trying to stop Germany for a few rounds after London fell.

No japan built fleet every round with america. 7-9 subs a turn with Japan. I don’t think you understand how hard it is for Japan to get knocked out of the phillipines. US is 3 turns away from the phillipines at San francisco and Japan is only 1 turn away. Yes US has Naval dominance, but it is this 3 turns aways VS. 1 turn away that makes it tough.

I haven’t bought a single transport for the US and right now I have 25 subs, 6 destroyers, 3 cruisers, 3 carriers fully loaded, and 1 BB stationed off of queensland with US and 10 subs in hawaii and 7 subs 2 destroyers and a fully loaded carrier in san francisco. I have been trading off a destroyer for a sub every turn with Japan with US loosing a destroyer. On T3 Japan blocked and lost 2 destroyers, but got good rolls and US lost the 2 subs it sent to kill the destroyers, but they did kill the Jap destroyers. So I don’t see how in the world you are saying that US can walk all over Japan so early. You must be playing poor opponets. I am not some noob player grasshopper. I haven’t lost a game of revised or 42 version in over 50 games… I am 6-0 right now in global… Japan on T2 built 2 subs 2 DD’s T3 built 5 subs, and on T4 built 8 subs. and now Japan has 22 subs, 6 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 5 carriers, 22 planes, and 2 BB’s. Next turn I can put 22 subs, 6 DD’s, 2 cruisers, 5 carriers, 13 planes (3 for airbase), and 2 BB’s in the phillipines.

Ok so instead of having 2 more subs and 1 more destroyer you will have 1 more BB. Still doesn’t mean you can attack my fleet. If you do you will loose horribly. The reason the moves are so defensive is because I am playing LL and if US attacked Japan would win with all her carriers and BB’s left and then some planes as well. US will be decimated while japan can then just repair her ships and buy more planes…