What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

To answer the topic title, too much if played with reg dice.

Lowluck is the name of the game.

Good lord this is still alive? I have written so much here.

Okay. Read the question, it says, “All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill, what percentage does luck influence the outcome of the game”.

The answer to this question really depends on whether there is any factor aside from luck and skill that affects the outcome. The question effectively defines a scenario where skill will not make any difference between the players, because the players are “as equal as possible” in that regard. So the game CANNOT be decided to any significant degree on the basis of skill, because it is equal.

I guess the other problem with the question is what is meant by luck. Obviously dice are part of luck, but there may be other factors in luck. If you miss something on the map, is that luck or is that skill? Are there other ways that luck can enter the game.

I think however that the question means dice when it says luck, and assumes that dice and skill are the only two factors. Logically, when you neutralize one of the two factors, the outcome will be decided 100% by the other factor.

Eg. suppose you are playing chess, or NO LUCK A&A (hits determined completely according to punch / 6, rounded). Then there is no element of luck, so skill makes 100% of the difference.

However, players of equal skill playing chess against each other will not always tie. Since there is no question of luck (or is there?) you have to say that the winner in each game played more skillfully than the loser. The fact is that we do not play with a 100% consistent level of skill. Some days you are on the ball, others you are not. So then are you lucky if you happen to be “on” on a given day, or are you “more skillful”?

The question is not sufficiently defined to be capable of a meaningful answer.

I like Switch’s comments.  Too bad he hasn’t taken his own advise much in our game.

Anyway, yes.  The trick is always to get your infantry stack to be attacked by the enemy.  Attacking infantry miss, ALOT.  Defending infantry miss, a little.  If the odds are skewed in a battle, odds are, the defenders are going to skew up in number of hits and the defenders will skew down in number of hits.  I cannot prove this mathematically, I can only tell you from gut instinct and from personal experience.

The second trick, of course, is to get your opponent to commit armor in battles where it will be left exposed.  Much harder to do, unless, of course, Germany throws their Airforce away in a bad series of battles and is left with little or no choice to use their armor. =)  Sorry, inside thing.  He’s recovered, but I will rib him for it regardless.

The third trick is to tempt your enemy to attack a weaker stack so as to pull his defenders away from your prize.  Sometimes this works.  For instance, if Japan garrisons Persia lightly so as to pull the Kazakhian and Caucasian armies down to Persia and secure Novosibirsk and then attack Russia (since Persia is 2 turns away for any infantry to get to Russia.)  Another good option, doesn’t always work either.  Problem here is factoring in what your enemy’s airforce(s) and army(s) can do to stop you.

The last trick, and the most prevellant and boring, is the infantry push mechanic.  As long as you out produce your enemy in infantry and armor you can eventually stack up enough that he cannot stop your forward momentum (save a miracle) and thus you win.  This is the most sure fired way to win the game since the only defense to this is building more units then your enemy.  (In which case, it’s the same tactic, in reverse.)

Hmm… I have not taken my own advice…  Then why oh why am I ahead in our game :?

Seems to me you made a MASSIVE error when you strafed Caucuses, and lost 2-to-1…  With my defenders kicking the snot out of your 23 attacking INF…

@Jennifer:

I like Switch’s comments.  Too bad he hasn’t taken his own advise much in our game.

Anyway, yes.  The trick is always to get your infantry stack to be attacked by the enemy.  Attacking infantry miss, ALOT.  Defending infantry miss, a little.  If the odds are skewed in a battle, odds are, the defenders are going to skew up in number of hits and the defenders will skew down in number of hits.  I cannot prove this mathematically, I can only tell you from gut instinct and from personal experience.

The second trick, of course, is to get your opponent to commit armor in battles where it will be left exposed.  Much harder to do, unless, of course, Germany throws their Airforce away in a bad series of battles and is left with little or no choice to use their armor. =)  Sorry, inside thing.  He’s recovered, but I will rib him for it regardless.

The third trick is to tempt your enemy to attack a weaker stack so as to pull his defenders away from your prize.  Sometimes this works.  For instance, if Japan garrisons Persia lightly so as to pull the Kazakhian and Caucasian armies down to Persia and secure Novosibirsk and then attack Russia (since Persia is 2 turns away for any infantry to get to Russia.)  Another good option, doesn’t always work either.  Problem here is factoring in what your enemy’s airforce(s) and army(s) can do to stop you.

The last trick, and the most prevellant and boring, is the infantry push mechanic.  As long as you out produce your enemy in infantry and armor you can eventually stack up enough that he cannot stop your forward momentum (save a miracle) and thus you win.  This is the most sure fired way to win the game since the only defense to this is building more units then your enemy.  (In which case, it’s the same tactic, in reverse.)

I guess tricks 1-3 are okay as long as you are not undermining your own position to lure your opponent. If counting on your opponent to make a mistake is your main strategy, it will only work against weak opponents. That’s why I generally opt for the “slow and steady” approach, but somehow my games seem not to get boring because I move my big stacks around, rather than just accumulating in one place.

@ncscswitch:

Hmm… I have not taken my own advice…  Then why oh why am I ahead in our game :?

Seems to me you made a MASSIVE error when you strafed Caucuses, and lost 2-to-1…  With my defenders kicking the snot out of your 23 attacking INF…

What were the particulars of this battle, do tell! Attacking force v. Defending force was… ?

@ncscswitch:

Hmm… I have not taken my own advice…  Then why oh why am I ahead in our game :?

Seems to me you made a MASSIVE error when you strafed Caucuses, and lost 2-to-1…  With my defenders kicking the snot out of your 23 attacking INF…

I made 1 error.  The error was not strafing Caucasus (which saved me 7 infantry and 7 armor for the cost of 15 infantry (just 1 above estimated) but missing the Kazakh attack with NCM through.)

I’ve seen three errors on your part. Allowing the destruction of 33% of the Japanese army.  Throwing away the German Air Force and the loss of the Kriegsmarine with very little cost to the allies.

You lucked out in round 1 or this would already be over.  As it is, my one mistake may cost me the game.  It may not.  You may attack Moscow and get obliterated doing very little damage and throw away your advantage.  Or you may wait too long and be forced to retreat.

Dan,

The details were the seperation of 7 Russian Infantry, 7 Russian armor from their line of supply.  Japan went insane recently with armor and fighter purchases and threw away a third of their equipment.

Considering the allies being unopposed in the Pacific and permitted to land anywhere in North America, Europe, North Asia or Africa at will with no consequences, the Russians decided it was best to hit Caucasus for a round to sneak those armor back to Russia for added defense.  Infantry, of course, being no object as America, England and Russia are building, roughly, 20-25 infantry a round and putting them directly into Moscow while Germany and Japan are producing barely 20 infantry a round combined with some added armor while they attempt to rebuild some semblance of a navy and an air force.

@Frood:

@ncscswitch:

Hmm… I have not taken my own advice…  Then why oh why am I ahead in our game :?

Seems to me you made a MASSIVE error when you strafed Caucuses, and lost 2-to-1…  With my defenders kicking the snot out of your 23 attacking INF…

What were the particulars of this battle, do tell! Attacking force v. Defending force was… ?

It was a deliberate strafe for the sole purpose of getting Russia’s 7 INF, 7 ARM back from Persia to Moscow after they attacked a Japan Mini-stack and then were cut off by Japan taking Kazakh.

Rather than liberate Kazakh by killing the 3 Japan units there, and NCMing the ARM back to Moscow, Jen did the strafe into Caucuses with both Persian and Moscow forces.

The attack was something like 23 INF, 1 ART, 7 ARM against 14 INF, 1 ART, 12 ARM, 5 FIGs.

I lost 8 Germany INF, she lost 15 Russian INF.

All 7 ARM got back to Moscow, but Kazakh remained Japan controlled, Japan kept 3 extra units alive, and Russia took 3 turns worth of build as damage (Russia is current collecting only $12)

Okay let’s see - Attacking punch:
Inf: 23
Art: 2 (+1 on Inf) = +3
Arm: 21
total: 47 - expect to score 8 hits.

Defending punch:
Inf: 28
Art: 2
Arm: 36
Ftrs: 20
Total: 86 - expect to score 13 hits.

So going in to this battle you’re looking at losing 5 Inf or 15 IPCs relative to the defender (total estimated loss actually 13 Inf though), in order to save 7 Inf - I don’t count the Arm because they could get home by another route. Switch got lucky and scored two more hits than expected - I usually plan based on at least this degree of divergence from the median outcome anyway.

Yep, sorry to say, that was not the optimal approach IMHO. The 7 Inf could have attacked Kazakh, with survivors at least being an obstacle to Japan, plus the extra IPCs of liberating a territory.

Not to mention that given the production situation, Russia’s units are far more precious and Russia cannot afford to trade units very much anyway.

(On Jen’s move)
IMO, it really depends on what the UK/US are doing, the overall strength of Japan, and the board setup.

I have not looked at your game, but in theory UK could take out the Kaz units or Jen delibrately wanted to soften up the German army for a possible UK/US strike with Russia then finishing it off on the 4th wave.  Or If Japan is somewhat weakened it is not a bad idea to wound the only potential attacking army (Germany), in this case it may be a good trade to trade Russian units for German since you leave UK and US to operate at full strength for later turns.

While the 8 to 15 trade isn’t that good, you also have to look at the overall number of German inf left.  which now falls below the number of rt/arm remaining on Cauc.  Now if Germany does attack Moscow the combined (assuming UK/US have presence in Mos) Allied force rips into the attacking rt/arm much quicker.

This is certainly a doable attack if the Allies already have the economic lead or close to it, are relatively close in unit totals, and how the Allies defenses are set up meaning can UK and US replace the loss of Russian inf with their inf.

However, if Japan is closing in on monster status and the UK/US aren’t getting much support to Moscow, this could be a bad move in that you weakened yourself against Germany where Japan is the real threat.

"All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill, what percentage does luck influence the outcome of the game? In other words, how much luck is involved in the outcome of the game between players of equal skill? "

The question omits the question of how skilled the players are.  Does the question of skill make a significant difference?

Two unskilled players will unknowingly undertake unfavorable battles, but will also fail to exploit opportunities.  There, strategy will still be a factor, but luck will play a significant role.

Very skilled players will undertake battles that are unfavorable, if such battles are the only chance of success.  Let us say that Germany can take Russia with 20% odds, but that failure to do so will decrease the German player’s chances every turn thereafter.  So the LOGICAL thing for the German player to do would be to try the long odds.

In the first case, there will be more luck involved, but the incompetence of the players will minimize the effects of luck.

In the second case, there is less luck involved, but the competence of the players will maximize the effects of luck.

So what’s the percentage?

Hm.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, DM.

But to be honest, I just wanted those frackin tanks back in Moscow.  I didn’t even think about hitting Kazakh with the Russian armies and air force and then driving home.

Of course, that would only have saved me a few infantry since the Germans and Japanese would have been seriously powerful enough to decimate 9 times over the Russian capitol and still have forces left to garrison all border territories.

*To decimate is to reduce by 1 tenth.  To decimate 9 times over is to reduce by 90%.  In other words, I’d have most of my air force and nothing else.

As it is, Switch is now piling every last man he has into Caucasus.  He’ll still probably win, but considering the game looked to be over in Round 5 and it’s now Round 8, I’m giving myself kudos for not only surviving this long, but leveling the playing field slightly.  He used to have a 2:1 army value advantage, now he’s only approaching a 2:1 value advantage. :P  And his fleets are toast if they get near mine. :)

Ah Jen…

I DO have that 2:1 advantage on land units.  Yes, you have undisputed control of the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.  I have undisputed control over the Pacific and Indian Oceans (I see that Russian Sub about to round the Cape of Good Hope…  He won;t last long…)

The only American land forces on the board are in North America (and Midway’s INF), or in Africa.  USA has 3 FIGs in Moscow, and a BOM in UK.  Their fleet is in SZ12 (and 3 new TRN in SZ10)
UK has forces only in UK, Archangel and Moscow (other than fleet that is all in SZ4).  Oh, and 1 INF in Alaska…
Russia is down to Archangel (with the UK keeping it liberated) and Moscow.

Germany has INF stacks in Western, Southern, and Caucuses, and a mini-stack in Eastern (Berlin is not currently under threat), has re-entered Africa with an ARM in Egypt, and is collecting $47

Japan has a stack in Novo, a mini-stack plus their AF in Caucuses, a mini-stack in Persia, a to-be-assembled mini-stack in India/FIC, and small stacks in Bury and Japan.  Fleet in SZ60, and a split-fleet that is in SZ36 and 32.

Axis has been collecting in the $90’s for several turns…

If the players are of equal skill, i.e. they calculate costs/risks the same way, then the only factor left is luck. Therefore, 100%. There’s no amount of skill that can compensate for the Japanese transport taking out both destroyer/carrier off of Kwangtung and surviving, or any amount of skill that compensates for a W. Russia defense that leaves the Russians with no inf on the first round.

If the players are of unequal skill, then luck has less of a factor. It could even be the minority factor if the other player is behind the ball on  assessing/predicting the board.

@newpaintbrush:

"All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill, what percentage does luck influence the outcome of the game? In other words, how much luck is involved in the outcome of the game between players of equal skill? "

The question omits the question of how skilled the players are.  Does the question of skill make a significant difference?

Two unskilled players will unknowingly undertake unfavorable battles, but will also fail to exploit opportunities.  There, strategy will still be a factor, but luck will play a significant role.

Very skilled players will undertake battles that are unfavorable, if such battles are the only chance of success.  Let us say that Germany can take Russia with 20% odds, but that failure to do so will decrease the German player’s chances every turn thereafter.  So the LOGICAL thing for the German player to do would be to try the long odds.

In the first case, there will be more luck involved, but the incompetence of the players will minimize the effects of luck.

In the second case, there is less luck involved, but the competence of the players will maximize the effects of luck.

So what’s the percentage?

Hm.

No one has yet answered my question of whether there is ANY factor besides skill and luck in the game.

If there is no third factor, then luck = 100% of the deciding factor where there is no difference in skill.

Let’s try it this way: In chess, is there any factor other than skill? If there is, then this factor might also co-exist with luck and skill in AAR, in which case the question really means what is the percentage between luck and this other factor.

Let’s try one last time. Suppose you have two equally skilled chess players. They alternate playing black and white (white has a slight advantage). Since they are equal in skill, you expect that of the games that do not end in stalemate, each player will win half, since they are equal in skill. Did I mention that they are equal in skill?

Actually, chess demonstrates this quite nicely. At high levels of play, players are very closely matched. For this reason, they play a bunch of games between the same players. Generally, white wins. The players are quite evenly matched, so the result in each game is determined more by the fact that white has a very slight advantage. The player who is just a little better simply manages to achieve more draws as black, or might get one victory as black.

So in chess there are two factors: skill, and the inherent imbalance of the board. Between perfectly matched players, that imbalance between white and black is decisive in pretty much all the games.

In A&A, there is also an inherent imbalance in the game which the bid intends to offset but it probably does not do so perfectly.

So where skill cannot be the deciding factor between players, since it is equal, the question is to what extent do the dice determine the outcome, and to what extent the inherent imbalance? I would say that the bid comes pretty close to eliminating the imbalance, so I would say that luck is 90% and imbalance is 10%.

Unless anyone can think of any other factors. Skill is by definition out of the question, so we are dividing a pie of 100% between dice and any other factors.

Or can someone explain to be how skill can play a role in determining the outcome, when skill is equal.

Gah! It’s just COMMON SENSE!

Imagine two players playing. They have equal skill (they just do.) One of them wins. Now ask yourself the question, why did Player A win? It CANNOT have been because of superior skill, because their skill was equal. When you’re looking for what made the difference in something, you are looking for things that are different. Science 101.

Skill will only win you a game when you have more of it than the other guy. If there is a way to win by being less skilled, I’d like to know about it!

YAY - Trihero gets it! +1 for him!

Yay, thanks Frood. We both get it!

By the way, who is smiting me -_-? I don’t smite anyone!