What's the consensus on a standard bid?

Also if you’re testing a specific strategy, it is simply faster to do it in LL. According to your earlier estimate Switch, 4 games out of 10 don’t show strategy simply due to dice (you were saying you lose 2 out of 10 games due to dice and win 2 out of 10 due to dice, then the in between shows what kind of player you are). That’s too many games to throw out considering how long games can take.

The only reason I can think why Jen would avoid LL in KJF is because she wants to hide behind the dice - if bad, then can’t prove the strategy wrong, if good, then it’s valid because it gives her a win. There’s just no way to show how the strategy doesn’t work.

The variations make a big difference. With risk maangement reduces/removed the game is different.

So I think LL games are good for modelling strategies for LL games.
But is only marginal for modellings strategies for ADS games.
Unless you want to bank on average dice. (which the bell curve has shown to happen not as often as some player wish)

So the same strategy that is viable in LL might not be viable in ADS. The simplest example given so far is the loss of planes.

Unless you want to bank on average dice. (which the bell curve has shown to happen not as often as some player wish)

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. Since the bell curve is equal on both sides, what tips it in the favor is the average dice.

I do not know how one can really compensate/plan for bad luck. I consider this “psychobabble” whenever I hear Switch say it. The only example I can think of is the order in which you roll your battles, but otherwise if you always plan on something bad happening, you will be overspending units in battles in order to get the odds better. Or you will not attack. I do not see any such “planning for bad battles”; there’s just absolutely nothing you are doing to plan for China when you lose 6 infantry there and the American fighter survives.

I guess you could just stay in the game and hope the other guy makes a mistake or just go for a big battle and pray for dice, but that’s not much of out-maneuvering or a plan.

In low luck you can ensure destruction of the units you want at sea by having 3 submarines.  So if the attacker comes at you with 4 fighters and a battleship, you might kill the defending fighters before the submarine because you KNOW that 3 submarines = 1 hit to a naval ship, where as the fighters allow the defender to chose their casualties between naval and air units.

In low luck you can attack with far fewer units then you would in an ADS game because you KNOW that your punch selected will win the battle with no chance of the defender winning, so why put the extra units at risk needlessly?

For instance, America has 2 Fighters and an Infantry in Russia.  Novosibirsk is garrisoned by Japan and America wants to clear it out.  In LL America can attack with all 3 units and be guaranteed that Russia can blitz in and out on their turn because there will be no defenders.  In ADS America has a “good” chance of missing the defender with a 33% chance the defender will hit the attacking infantry.  I say good because my fighter pilots seem to be blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to offensive combat.  That means I generally have to bring 2 infantry and 2 fighters to guarantee I kill my enemy in 2 rounds or less.  LL, not a problem!  The two fighters kill the target, the infantry can absorb any hits the defender gets.

Changes the whole dynamic of the game from a real game of Axis and Allies to a formula.  It’s like turning Chess into Checkers, IMHO.

No, playing No Luck would make it like chess. Which has been popular for a lot longer than A&A.

LL still allows for considerable variation in the outcome of medium and large battles.

LL is to ADS as Checkers is to Chess

@Cmdr:

It’s like turning Chess into Checkers, IMHO.

That’s a terrible analogy

Checkers has automatic kills, just like chess.

LL does not make AA checkers become AA chess.

LL turns AA Vegas~{ADS}(predicatable but not assured returns) into AA Money Markets (guarenteed returns with minimal fluctations)

You answered it yourself.

Not attacking is one of the main differences between LL and ADS.

That simply separates the good players from the pseudo-good players. The pseudo-good players will avoid good battles because they are scared of the possibility of the 20% or lower happening.

In LL you can prosecute all the battles you want without fear of some of them going poorly and putting you in a bad position.

Even I did fully agree with that statement (which I don’t, because there is variability in small battles; Ukraine for instance still ranges from 2 arm surviving to 3 inf 1 art surviving, a humongous difference), does that benefit one side more than the other? Only if LL unbalances the game would I abandon it.

but then they must make choices as to whether they want to attack, continue to attack, or retreat based on the full range of possible outcomes that might occur with the use of dice.

Sounds fancy, but it does not happen as often as you would think. If you really do base your decision on LL counting, then your decision to attack or not is only influenced in strafing attacks. In ADS you simply have to decide to retreat once the battle has already started which doesn’t take much thought either, because you are still initiating the same attacks (minus precise strafes, but you should still strafe in ADS, just with a little more thought about what to send).

That keeps coming back as the argument in support of LL.  But it’s a flawed argument.  ADS is vastly superior because of the swings of the dice.  LL is just a good way to have a formulaic game with very little deviation from expected results.  There’s any number of attacks I would do in LL that I wouldn’t in ADS because the outcome is all but guaranteed.  Likewise, there’s chances I might take in ADS (defensively) that I wouldn’t in LL because I know the enemy WILL destroy my defensive force instead of the off chance that they might win, but get creamed by withering defensive fire (the same reason most GOOD players won’t attack if they only have a 52% chance to win in ADS but will in LL.)

LL is just a good way to have a formulaic game with very little deviation from expected results.

My argument from ground zero has been LL is a good strategic modeling tool. I do not think it is superior to ADS, I do not think LL should replace ADS. You, Switch, and Craig continue to misrepresent the argument.

In LL, no battle is outside the boundaries of reason. You do not lose 6 inf in China, you do not lose a Russian fig in Ukraine due to all defenders hitting. Therefore, there is no complaining of things happening to such an extent that the dice are the sole determining factor of the game. That is clearly why LL is a great strategic modeling tool to assess in the diagnostic of a strategy, because it attenuates out the polluting factor of great/bad dice. It is a diagnostic tool, not a replacement for the real thing.

It is not a perfect tool, but it is very useful, much more useful than having to play thousands of ADS games to get a good idea because half of ADS games you have to throw out because the dice went critically in favor of one side at a crucial battle.

I’m not misrepresenting the case.  I’m just trying to point out that tactics, decisions, game theory and the rest are different in LL then ADS making the game, essentially, a different game.

What thrill is there in attacking a capitol with 20% odds and losing in LL?  There’s immense thrill in ADS that you might win (after all, 1 in 5 odds of success, that’s way better then playing the lottery or going to Vegas!)

I’m not misrepresenting the case.  I’m just trying to point out that tactics, decisions, game theory and the rest are different in LL then ADS making the game, essentially, a different game.

What thrill is there in attacking a capitol with 20% odds and losing in LL?  There’s immense thrill in ADS that you might win (after all, 1 in 5 odds of success, that’s way better then playing the lottery or going to Vegas!)

You ARE misrepresenting the case. You argument right here is that the game is about the thrill and LL kills the thrill. That is the whole point - it is used to throw out the extreme dice to see the strategy.

LL is not representative of ADS on the whole - but the whole focus of LL is to throw out the dice that favors either side clearly, so we get to those middle games where it’s more about strategy than dice. LL is a diagnostic tool, not a replacement for ADS.

But LL is NOT good for strategic modeling.

Results within 1 standard deviation are to be EXPECTED.  LL basically removes that.

Good strategies allow for some sub-standard dice, which will happen in every single game.  If you model your strat based on “average” results for each battle, within 1 turn your available forces for any given battle will be significantly different in ADS than they are in LL.  One slightly above average here, one slightly below average there… and suddenly your planned move on your strategy test 3 turns from now is 100% impossible either because of a lack of available forces to even make the attempt at a given planned battle or advance, or that you are so much stronger at another point that you can capitalize on a huge advantage.

Results within 1 standard deviation are to be EXPECTED.  LL basically removes that.

Good strategies allow for some sub-standard dice, which will happen in every single game.  If you model your strat based on “average” results for each battle, within 1 turn your available forces for any given battle will be significantly different in ADS than they are in LL.  One slightly above average here, one slightly below average there… and suddenly your planned move on your strategy test 3 turns from now is 100% impossible either because of a lack of available forces to even make the attempt at a given planned battle or advance, or that you are so much stronger at another point that you can capitalize on a huge advantage.

So what exactly are you saying? That is precisely what is trying to be avoided - either that you got diced, or you diced the opponent. Both clearly throw out the strategy. That is why LL is a great strategic modeling tool, because it better delineates the actual strategy.

I think what you are trying to say is that people with a LL mindset can’t handle ADS. That is a different argument. I am saying that LL shows the strategy rather than the dice dictating the strategy.

If you plan with the Bell curve in mind your going to do a much better game.

I see what you guys are really saying. You’re basically accusing LL players of sucking at ADS because of some fluffy arguments about not planning for changes in the dice. That’s simply not true, at least in my case. You’re not even trying to address LL as a valid strategic tool specifically designed to attenuate out swings in either direction, because swings in either direction show dice, not strategy.

And how would I do much better, Nix? I don’t even understand what you mean by that.

What we’re trying to say is that LL gives you almost identical results all the time in LL games, but those results are unrealistic in ADS games over a period of rounds.  ADS, on the other hand, forces you to build in redundancy into your strategies to make up for battles that go exceptionally good or bad.  That means if a strategy works in ADS, it will work in LL.  But if a strategy does not work in ADS, it may still work in LL.  And not all strategies that work in LL will work in ADS.

What we’re trying to say is that LL gives you almost identical results all the time in LL games, but those results are unrealistic in ADS games over a period of rounds.  ADS, on the other hand, forces you to build in redundancy into your strategies to make up for battles that go exceptionally good or bad.  That means if a strategy works in ADS, it will work in LL.  But if a strategy does not work in ADS, it may still work in LL.  And not all strategies that work in LL will work in ADS.

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.

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.