The ADS vs. LL debate

Well Avin… apparently the only way I was going to get a game with you was to go one each way… so that was my offer.

I don’t know jack shite about LL, so you are going to have to give me a few links so that I can study up before we start (I already know SBR is fracked… how does AA work?  What about sub sneaks?  etc. etc.)

As for Revised…

With me being in the midst of the Revised Tournament… I really am not free to being a Revised game right now.  So…  We stick with the original issues.

Now, the next question is… are we going to weight the bids at all? (for different areas)

http://www.daak.de/lowluck/lowluckregel.php?sprache=e should contain everything you need to know. You can also use the LowLuck dicey on DAAK to make a few trial combats if it isn’t clear as well. By the way, if you need to create a game, you can use my DAAK username (AVIN) since I noticed you have an account there too, that way we don’t have to enter each other’s emails each time.

Regarding bids, I am fine with whatever. We could simply do straight blind bids if you’d prefer, but I was thinking it might not be too hard to just come to a common agreement. If you’re ok with it, I already have a couple bids in mind (one for LL, one for ADS) and I can just post them and we can negotiate, not auction style were you’d be forced to bid lower but just whatever we agree on - for instance, if you were set on playing Axis for one of the games and had a bid that was higher than what I was offering, I might still be OK with it. This way if you have a more creative bid you’d like to try, like say 2 BB BAL, you could propose it.

Are we including tech in our ADS game?

Nah… let’s just stick with the regular game, the only difference being bids and method of battle determination.

Switch how much fun is it when you play the axis, in an ADS game, and you lose 2 fig’s at UKZS, 1 fig at ECsz and you lose to much in AES… Then the game is over after 1 turn… Simply because you can’t win anymore… Like AS pointed out several times the Axis have at least 5-6 fights they have to fight. All with a lot of risk implied, but they have too commit them. As the Allies you can lose some battles in the beginning and still easily win…  Too often I see people get wasted on their G1 turn, either because of bad purchasing, bad dice or tactical errors… LL just makes the game fairer, just like bids…

If you want to play the game as it was intended, I will play you with the Allies, ADS, no bids and no RR…

@AgentSmith:

In conclusion, I immensely dislike playing people like yourself b/c you are not at all about learning to play the game better, or honing your play but about proving what a big man you are by beating people(which you don’t even do very often).  This is not a fun game for me and especially not in ADS b/c your motivations are not to match wits like DM likes to do, but merely to show up someone and I can’t stand that.  Your play will never improve or change because of this and you are a lost cause.

I am SSSOOO Glad to know exactly what you think of me AS.  Shame you are dead wrong.

NEITHER of my games against Darth have been to “show him up”, or make myself feel “big” for winning.  BOTH of the previous games were to test specific theories regarding Axis minimum bids… to challenge  the basic assumptions and conventional wisdom that you and others have.

Was I dead wrong on the Baltic TRN bid?  Yes, I was.  I admit that.
Was I dead wrong on the PAsia bid?  Not completely… a few units shifted to Europe to make it a more balanced play and it may darn well work.  Perhaps I will have a chance to test it sometime soon…

As for winning games…
I have lost 2 strategy testing games to Darth, won 2 traditional gamesagainst Maddog, and am playing my 5th game overall as we speak.    In Revised my win percentage is about the same, actually a bit lower… about 40% I think.

I play because I ENJOY it.

And you know something… I’ll bet I have more fun at this than you do.
Maybe if I played A&A for a living (Celebrity Axis and Allies Tour on ESPN?) I would think differently.  But last I checked, it was a game, was played for recreation, was meant for the players to have fun, and there is no Professional A&A Circuit with large jackpots and televised World Championships with $1,000,000 purses.

So, you go on about your business.  Rant and rave as you please.  I’m and going to enjoy myself and see how I do facing a PAfr for the first time in my life agaisnt Darth.

@ncscswitch:

Was I dead wrong on the PAsia bid? Not completely… a few units shifted to Europe to make it a more balanced play and it may darn well work. Perhaps I will have a chance to test it sometime soon…

A few units shifted to Eur… => No Pasia bid anymore…

A power Asia bid won’t succeed unless you get around 30 to spend with… Otherwise you just can’t pressure Russia enough. It is just not enough…

I believe you whined about dice in your game against DM and Octopus… So why are you complaining about having “Bad Luck” if you are such an advocate for ADS? Just a simple question…

Well, in teh second game against Darth, the odds of that particular sequence of dice occuring is about 1 in 100,000.  That is bad luck WAY outside of the expected range.  A dice frack is to be expected… 5 consecutive TOTAL dice fracks…  Well that is a game ender.

And with Octo… is was just bad dice at totally the wrong time.  That was a set of battles the Allies HAD to have go according to plan (due to inferior play in the preceeding rounds).

But that is how it works out sometimes.

Sure, you get to complain about it.  BUT, it is still a game.

And a few folks seem to have lost that particular concept.

@Bashir:

Switch how much fun is it when you play the axis, in an ADS game, and you lose 2 fig’s at UKZS, 1 fig at ECsz and you lose to much in AES… Then the game is over after 1 turn… Simply because you can’t win anymore… Like AS pointed out several times the Axis have at least 5-6 fights they have to fight. All with a lot of risk implied, but they have too commit them. As the Allies you can lose some battles in the beginning and still easily win…  Too often I see people get wasted on their G1 turn, either because of bad purchasing, bad dice or tactical errors… LL just makes the game fairer, just like bids…

If you want to play the game as it was intended, I will play you with the Allies, ADS, no bids and no RR…

I’ve been thinking about trying LL, as I feel more inclined to choose ADS but would like to see how it flows.  So far, I think this best explains why LL is the choice by many.  However, here are some of my concerns, which are hopefully not repeated from elsewhere.

First, and probably the least of my points, is that ADS reflects many factors of battle that don’t occur elsewhere in the game.  In this I mean that superiority in numbers wouldn’t necessarily mean an automatic win, and a bad roll could reflect a failed assault.  A good roll could reflect favorable weather, cracked codes, determination & increased morale, etc.  The “random element” to me is a generalized function to support & reflect the unknown consequences of any action, and is simple so that it doesn’t bog down the gameplay.

Second, I don’t agree with using averages.  When reviewing averages and statistics you often find that the average is imaginary and does not occur in any instance realistically.  This is why I favor a randomization of results.  This kind of goes along with my first point, and that the average outcome is not necessarily the most likely result.

Third, the criticism that ADS is too unpredictable to be trusted seems a bit exaggerated to me.  In fact, it IS balanced because you are just as likely to receive good rolls as bad ones, and your opponent is just as likely to receive those positives and negatives as you are.  Not to mention, the possibility of having terrible or fantastic rolls consistently is very, very low.

Fourth, another minor critique, is that it’s additional “rules” to get used to if you are new to the game.  I like to try and keep things streamlined, but if you already know how to employ LL, then it’s obviously not a problem.

I completely understand wanting to use LL to try get down to the core strategy employed by the Axis and Allies, but I agree with Switch that if superior strategy is the main concern, then ADS goes a longer way to prove the better strategist (because of unclear outcomes, you may have to adjust your strat) - I don’t think anyone DEPENDS on a good die rolls unless they are taking risks (which is fine because risks are taken in this game much like anywhere else), and LL couldn’t support that possibility.  However, you don’t see those gambles very often because, simply, they are a gamble.

To me, LL would be akin to removing the river card in Texas Hold 'Em.  You may have a pretty clear winner by the turn, but that doesn’t mean that they WILL win.  Yet, it would be perfectly fine to remove the river card, it just wouldn’t be Texas Hold 'Em anymore…and as long as all parties agree to those changes, then no concern.

I need to reread through the LL explanation posted here and, more importantly, play a few games with it before I can confirm a preference.  A question though: do LL games generally take less time?  I could see that as a major benefit…

Jermofoot…

I think you said what I feel far better than I have managed to do thus far.

As far as shifting strats, an adjusting tactics… I think my current game with Darth, in particular the most recent moves by Japan and Russi (J2 and R3) show the net effect of random dice…

Japan lost 2 FIGs and a BOM against a US fleet of 1 TRN and 1 BB in the South Pacific, with the US BB surviving.  VERY favorable US dice (there is only a 4% chance of that result… 1 game in 25).

And in Russia’s most recent re-taking of Ukraine… 3 INF and 2 FIG against 1 INF, Russia lost 2 INF… only 2% odds of that happening… 1 game in 50.

So, in just 3 rounds there were TWO dice fracks.  I think that adequately proves that random dice WILL indeed creep in to any game.  And the effect on strats…

Japan now has to think about GUARDING their tranny fleet in the Pacific… having only 1 Capital ship left (an empty AC) and having lost HALF of their Air Force, which SERIOUSLY reduces the combat strength of the advancing INF in Asia.  And Russia can ill afford to lose ANY INF in Europe, especially with the 1 round delay in US landings due to the previous turn’s loss of the US TRN’s off Washington.

So the game shifts a bit… Japan has to be more cautious in their use of their remaining AF AND in using their trannies, especially in the FIC area since the US BB is off the west coast of Australia…  No free unescorted trannies to India and beyond.  And Germany may be emboldened in Europe a bit… not much but some.

So… tactics are adjusted, even if only SLIGHTLY (such as better protection of trannies).  And THAT my friends changes the game from pre-set, pre-planned strats.

Now, I have no doubt that Darth is up to the challenge of meeting these shifting tactical situations (such as protecting his Japan trannies, or dealing wth the massed Allied force in Persia).  BUT… it is NOT pre-set strat… it requires adjustment, instead of just playing the odds.

Now, I am NOT sitting too well against Darth right now…  BUT… I would like to think that the Pesia massing is not something he was expecting from me… and certainly not in the mass that is there now.  And that, combined with a BB roaming in the Indian Ocean, combined with more traditional strats, might actually make Darth WORK for this win.

At least that is what I am aiming for.  A few more turns will see if it was worthwhile.

Well, here is the reason I sent the TRN and BB to the Pacific…

Japan had only 1 Capital Ship left after Pearl.

That simple folks, no rocket science there.

There was an opportunity for me to Island Hop and grab some income for the US, but more importantly to raid IPC’s away from Japan, slowing them down SLIGHTLY.

And Japan had 2 choices:  allow me to raid, or attack my fleet almost exclusively with air power (since they lacked fleet).

And to be honest, I was EXPECTING to be attacked.
My goal was to take out 1-2 TRN if they were brought along for fodder (slowing the feed of forces to Asia for a net TWO rounds… 1 round that they were diverted south after my fleet, and another to be replaced after being sunk).  Or to kill a couple of FIGs (I expected to kill 2 units if he attacked since he could not mass navy to attack me).
I got lucky… I killed 3 aircraft instead of just 2.  And my BB is still alive.  No real risk, just an annoyance to Darth making him cover his Indian Ocean trannies

But even if the BB HAD died, Japan would have been missing some Air Force.  And Darth’s strat requires Air Force for offensive punch as Japan.

IF he still had his Air Force, Russia would fall in J4.  Without it, Russia will survive J4.

It is a type of gaming that is alien to AS… DIVERSION.

And in this case, it worked, better than I expected.

Japan sans just 2 FIGs would have been nice, and was the result I expected… 50% of his remaining FIGs gone.

The alternative was to have 1 TRN, 2 INF, and 1 BB raiding in the islands.  Actually NOT a major risk to Japan… no way to replenish those INF.  I might have taken 4 IPC’s or so from Japan before my INF was destroyed by defensive fire, and then my forces in the Pacific would have been worthless as a threat to Japan.

Darth would ahve been better off letting his INF on the islands take out the threat, rather than risking ONLY his Air Forces to kill what was not a significant threat to Japan.

Sorry Darth, it was a strategic error to attack that fleet… even if the dice had only been average it was STILL a strategic error.  The risk-benefit analysis from 2 non-replaceable INF is NEVER worth your FIGs.

I think this discussion is mixing up two important aspects of strategic planning - logistics and flexibility. Here I refer to logistics as the aspect of strategy that involves how to move units and conduct battles so as to achieve short term and long term goals, and flexibility as the ability to adapt your goals and replan logistics based on events external to your control.

It’s certainly true that with ADS dice, good play requires much more flexibility than with LL because of the nature of how the dice work and the rapid swings in power that can happen. Because you never know what’s going to happen, a player basically needs to replan what the optimal moves on each country’s turn. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. However, this is achieved at the expense of almost completely negating any need for good long term logistics. While there are certainly important things on the tactical level to be considered every turn, you simply cannot achieve the same level of multi-turn logistics you can in games without such random events. Comparing again to chess, good players can “look ahead” several turns, considering all possible moves an opponent can make and plan their current move based on those possibilities. Theoretically, a computer that was capable of perfect logistics, in other words, infinite look-ahead, would require absolutely no flexibility, because everything could be planned at the start of the game. LowLuck solves the problem of the shallow logistics involved in standard A&A by decreasing the randomness factor. Certainly this decreases the requirement to achieve a high level of flexibility, but it’s certainly not as bad as games with no luck such as chess.

I disagree with your assessment…

Logistics is even MORE essential in ADS, because you have to make allowance for both your main plan AND likely variables.

If you don;t, then any block, any deviation, any problem with dice or whatever means certain loss.

So you have to be able to adjust not only your front line forces, but also your supply lines, counter-attack forces, etc.

And again, IMHO, being able to adapt to changes and still win is the mark of a suprior gamer vs. one who simply executes the same old moves game after game with a guarantee of certain battles always going the same way because of “low luck”.

Switch, what you’re talking about is flexibility once again. When I refer to logistics, I am excluding flexibility. Sorry if you are used to using the terms differently or something, but you have to understand that there is a seperate component to strategy completely unrelated to flexibility that is in some ways inversely proportional to it. In chess, you can have perfect “logistics” but no flexibility and win every time; in poker you can completely ignore logistics, but you have to be extremely flexible to react to the cards you are dealt and the way your opponents are bidding or acting. Axis and Allies involves both, but ADS requires more flexibility and less logistics, LL requires more logistics and less flexibility.

Switch, talking logistics from your side it pretty weird… Your purchasing in your game vs DM is the opposite from thinking logistics. Your USA move was completely anti-logistics. You commited to fast to too much transports on the turn before. Also with the UK yo committed to fast to your trannies. That is not possible when you try to block Africa too… You should purchase for the long war not just react to the moves from the other player. The cohesion from the allied powers is not there…

Logistics are more important in LL than in ADS, because in ADS you always have a chance that luck will bail you out. If your logistics in LL doesn’t work you will simply lose, no question about that. With LL you know what the opponent can bring and calc what you are gonna lose in a strafe, so your units must be in place at always. In ADS you can rely on dice is some situations…

So you would ahve played it differently…  You’d have brought 2 TRN along to make it 5 units instead of 3 attacking that fleet.

2 TRN that would not be disgourging troops to Asia that round… one of which MAYBE 2 of which would be sunk and never transport anything again…
2 FIGs that end up Carrier based and not used for combat in Asia either that turn OR the next…

So it is STILL a diversion, one you yourself would have gone after… a basically worthless fleet in terms of threat to the Axis would have drawn off more than half of your AF for 2 turns, drawn off half of your transport capacity for a turn, and resulted in the loss of 25% to 50% of your current transport capacity.

You had in right in your first post…
That BB, TRN and 2 INF was a negligable threat to Japan, and should have been ignored.  The 1-4 IPC’s that would have shifted would have little to no bearing on the game… certainly far less than the loss of 3 aircraft…
and probably less than the loss of even a single TRN, and the units that were not trannied to Asia the round the trannies were serving as cannon fodder, and 2 of your FIGs ending up AC based and out of range for attacks in Asia the next round (based on your version of that battle AS)

Well first off, 3 FIGs could not have reached.

Second… I play a bit different thatn a lot of folks (as you keep pointing out).  My PACFLT is considered dead at start.  So ANY gain they make is worth while.  And killing a fair amount of enemy before they die is a GOOD thing.

As for the BOM and 2 TRN comparison…
Having Germany risk that bomber (which admitedly did not pay off THIS game) for just 2 TRN early… More than half the time the bomber would die on that attack… reducing Germany’s AF a nice chunk AND reducing the requirements for screening of TRN’s since Germany would be down to just FIGs with low range.

For each move, there is a counter.
For each strat there is a counter.

And every now and then… screwed up ideas WORK…  especially when folks are used to playing a certain way agaisnt certain strats.

Darth (and probably you too AS) are too skilled for that to be immediately fatal.

But unpredictability can in itself be an asset in this game (who would have thought that Russia would funnel a number of divisions to Africa when be crunched east and west?)

Idd, if you would have gone after that fig, you would have had like 4 inf and 2 figs to attack there… That is kind of a gamble…