No Luck Revised v. 0.1

That last post is VERY true.

But I will go ahead and lose that ONE game out of 100,000 where that would actually happen.

I have has some REALLY bad series of dice in a number of games.  I mean the 2-3 turns of horrendous dice that Jen is complaining about.  You know somethign, the last game that I got really dice slammed for 3 straight turns, I won the game.  Why?  because I outplayed my opponent and was able to make the dice WORK for me, good or bad.

@ncscswitch:

That last post is VERY true.

But I will go ahead and lose that ONE game out of 100,000 where that would actually happen.

I have has some REALLY bad series of dice in a number of games.  I mean the 2-3 turns of horrendous dice that Jen is complaining about.  You know somethign, the last game that I got really dice slammed for 3 straight turns, I won the game.  Why?  because I outplayed my opponent and was able to make the dice WORK for me, good or bad.

Yea, I done that once or twice too, it’s called turtling and praying for that one round of combat he gets atrocious dice and crucifying him for it!

No it is called playing to advantage.  Slight shift of focus to go after a weaker spot, reducing your short-term expectations and aiming at a longer term for reaching goals, etc.

In short, it is called being able to think and adjust strats on the fly.

And THAT was always my main argument against LL.  People like Agent Smith who has spent a couple months with a SIM to work out the one best way to do things are SCREWED when faced with the unknown.  The very first time they lose more units than expected, their entire remainign battle plan is TOAST.  Then, you just out think them, instead of trying to out-sim them.

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?

@Jennifer:

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:

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.

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!

@ShadowHAwk:

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.

@Jennifer:

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.