@newpaintbrush:
NO WAI. Let me propose a simple game. You take ten coins and flip them. Every time you have more heads then tails, or more tails then heads, you remove the “extra” heads or tails. (So if you flip the ten coins and get six heads and four tails, you remove two of the “heads” coins).
Now according to Low Luck, your game is going to last, well, forever.
See how long your game REALLY lasts. Then ask yourself how well Low Luck would have predicted your game. Yeah, see what I mean?
OMG Low Luck is NOT the way to play if you want to test a strategy, UNLESS you’re trying to test a LOW LUCK strategy!
I don’t find this a compelling argument at all. Comparing A&A and your theoretical coin game really is apples to oranges. The rules between the two are so completely different that noting how one reacts to LL as compared to other is basically worthless.
Don’t call my argument worthless. It has feelings, you know. :cry: See what you did . . .
Let me say it explicitly, if you make an incredibly GOOD LOW LUCK STRATEGY, that SAME strategy will get its a** handed to it in an ADS game if the opponent is skilled!
I don’t know, I think KGF is a pretty great strategy in both LL and ADS.
I do not think of “Score lots and stop them from scoring” as a strategy for football, and I do not think of “KGF” as a strategy for Axis and Allies. That is to say, I think a real strategy demands a plan of action, with contingencies in case the plan breaks down (i.e. bad dice) or is countered (i.e. the opponent makes a countermove to force a change in your plan).
To be more specific, I think of a strategy as “Ferry maximum tanks from Eastern Canada to Algeria each turn ASAP with US to retake Africa quickly and to reinforce Persia before the Japanese can move in in force, while taking attacks of opportunity on the German Baltic and/or Mediterranean navy as position allows; use UK and Russia combined to stall out Germany’s navy in the Atlantic and Germany’s army in Europe; if needed, transpose E. Canada-Algeria transport route into E.Canada-UK / UK - Norway/Karelia/Eastern Europe/Archangel, or W. Canada invasion.” Or “Build a gigantic UK air force to smash the German navy quickly, while the U.S. builds carriers to compensate for the lack of UK fodder in its attack on Algeria”, or some such.
Now, if you accept that strategy requires those sorts of specifics, I am sure you will agree that with Low Luck, you have much more control over the outcomes of battles, so the field of possible outcomes is vastly - almost ridiculously - reduced. With that degree of added control, you can now run attacks that would be entirely too risky in ADS.
It is clear then, that under LL, the OPTIMAL strategy is going to be MUCH DIFFERENT than the optimal ADS strategy. This, without resort to theoretical coin-flipping games (although I still think my example was a good one. :lol:)
good low luck players are NOT necessarily good ADS players, and vice versa!
Here I agree with you, completely. A player can be a great long term planner and odds calculator but be sucky at adapting to unlikely events that occur. Such a player would be good at LL but not good at ADS, except in those ADS games where the MAJOR battles do not skew far from average. Likewise a player could be average at best at long term planning but be great at recognizing and taking advantage of sudden changes in board conditions when a big battle goes much worse than average for their opponent. Such a player would be good at ADS but not so good at LL.
Your understanding of Low Luck and ADS is different to mine. I think LL actually rewards players that are good SHORT term planners (because of the immediacy of attack outcome calculation, counterattack force distribution and counterattack outcome calculation, and counter-counterattack force distribution (based on existing forces and newly bought forces), while I think ADS rewards long-term players that are not caught up in the immediacy of whether one battle fails or not, but keep an eye on the long-term goals that are to be attained.
A BAD strategy will get its a** handed to it in Low Luck OR in ADS,
No, sometimes even a bad strategy will succeed in ADS because of crazy good dice on the part of player using the bad strategy (and/or crazy bad dice for his opponent). This is MUCH less likely in LL since LL greatly minimizes the effects of crazy dice. This is why I think LL is a good tool for quickly weeding out the good strategies from the bad.
That is just not true. A bad “strategy” fails almost by definition. Even if the strategy succeeds at one point, if the strategy is fundamentally unsound, it WILL fail, dice results notwithstanding. And if the strategy SUCCEEDS, and if it CONTINUES to succeed, then perhaps the strategy is not bad after all.
OK, let me be clear about my feelings on this matter.
An attack that is good in ADS is bad for LL. An attack that is good in LL is bad in ADS. Therefore, and with no disrespect intended to anyone on these forums, my personal opinion - and let me stress, my PERSONAL opinion - is that trying to say that what is good for one is good for the other is like chaining a flaming baboon onto a tiger and throwing the result into a grove of banana trees that has recently been doused in chocolate syrup and saturation bombing that whole mess with Islamic militants from the thirty-third century that were flung back through time by a mis-wired DVD player that was set to show the fifth season of the original Star Trek (which never existed, but let’s not get into that). In other words, my head explodes.
