LL v ADS

@Bean:

I see your point that you cannot bait ever at all in LL, and you are absolutely 100% correct about this. In fact, this is what I have been saying from a a few months about LL that strafing is too precise is the main difference between LL and ADS. I know that. And you know it too.

But do you see my point that you can still strafe in ADS? It’s a very subtle difference we’re talking about now. We don’t have to be in contradiction since we’re talking about different things - you say baiting doesn’t work in LL (true) I say you can still strafe in ADS (also true). I’m not saying you have the same precision in ADS obviously, but you can still find the numbers to make it at least slightly favorable. Like Darth said, switching from ADS to LL does not suddenly make strafing invalid due to doubt of taking the territory. You can modify your attack to have a small chance of taking the territory. There is a point at which the risk is small enough that the gains are still worth it.

If you send too much offense, you take the territory too often, which is bad. If you send too little offense, you do not deal enough damage compared to the losses you take, which is also bad. But there has to be something in between in which you do not have a significant chance of taking the territory (5-10%), yet still are dealing more damage than you take (1:1 at worst). Do you acknowledge this? Maybe I have not been making myself clear until this point, but now do you understand what I am saying? There’s no need for all of this frustration between us. I say strafing is still an option in ADS. You say it’s not as great of an option as in LL. We are in agreement, or at least we are not in disagreement, aren’t we?

Of course you can straffe in ADS.  I don’t think I said you never could, just that it wasn’t a slam dunk like it is in LL.  There’s just more risk.  So to lessen the risk, you lessen your effectiveness… sometimes even to the point of less than the 1:1 of which you speak.  Since it’s usually a one round of battle and w/d, you never know with such small numbers.  I’m sure the favorable outcomes happen as often as the unfavorable ones…

or do they?  Only ADS knows :)

And to a great extent I agree we’re really not in much of a disgreement.

:roll:
My my, aren’t we all in a dither!
LL is for tacticians and ADS is for luckticians  :-P.
And that is all I have to say about that.
        :-o

@Crazy:

And that is all I have to say about that.
         :-o

Thank You Forrest Gump

Interesting thread!

I’ve never understood why people play LL, I think it does take the fun out of the game. I like the extreme dice rolls when they happen, even if I’m on the bad end of one. Surely no one could argue that chance plays no part in war, there are plenty of things that chance is supposed to represent: morale, weather, intelligence, training, supplies, experience etc. And if LL makes no difference to the outcome of the whole game, as some seem to suggest, then why bother?

If you want a game with no chance, play chess. I prefer to fear the dice.

Thank you Craig.  That divergence is the critical reason why LL is not viable as a strat test platform.

You would still have to admit that low luck helps you understand when it does not diverge significantly, so that you know what you are doing in the long run works.

Or even given a divergence, then you are still basically using low luck theory to figure out how to respond to it. You’re not exactly waiting for the dice to diverge again, you’re thinking about how to change your strategy.

Not to mention, there are some divergent battles in LL such as the Baltic attack, Russian Triple, etc.

No one is saying that they aren’t different. Saying they are different would be as asinine  as saying the sun is hot. The question is whether they are different enough to be completely incomparable to each other in all respects. I think LL is very good to show you if you have a shot at the late game. If you get a couple divergent dice throws in ADS, you are either lead to believe your original strategy was crap and stop trying it even though it rocks with average/normal dice, or you are lead to believe your original strategy was awesome when it really sucks.

Some tactics and strats may differ from ADS or LL, but still I think most strats and the crucial factors are valid
both for ADS and LL.
The German navy strat could possibly be a tactic which might work in ADS, because of the overkill needed,
this could mean that the fleet will last one, maybe even 2 rnds more than in LL.
As for KJF or KGF, LL or ADS have absolutely no impact of weather the KJF is as good as KGF. And for the balanced strat, switching to Asia midgame, LL or ADS have no impact here either.

Another issue which is a distinct difference from ADS to LL, if you play against someone who is very good then
ADS or LL makes it kind of “another game”. As much as I hate to admit it, this is difference that matters imo.
When discussing different strats and tactics, my experience in revised is both LL and ADS, so that’s why I
see things the way I see it, the most important factors are the same in my eyes, even if not other players agree.
You need fleet protection, inf are good for defending etc, most general issues are the same both in LL and ADS.

The difference from LL to ADS which I can admit to some degree, that makes it “another game”, is when playing
against someone who is a much better player.
In 1vs1 games with LL setting, if you are not a top player, but a newb like me, if you then play against the best
LL players then you have a much lesser chance of winning than if it is an ADS game. This is a huge difference.
I can win against anyone I think, I have not yet played a game with ADS in which an opponent seemed
unbeatable for me. As Switch pointed out, maybe 20% of all ADS games is decided by the dice. This can be both
1% or 100% if 2 players are very equal, or they are not on the same level, then good luck cannot save the allies player if he loses London and make other big mistakes i.e.
So in the context of winning or losing against some other player, then LL makes it another game yes.

@Sir:

Interesting thread!

I’ve never understood why people play LL, I think it does take the fun out of the game.

You are right about that, in some situations imo.
I wish there was only one set of rules, would be much easier. About LL or ADS, some players are not
fun to play against with LL. With ADS anyone can possibly beat any opponent, in a single game.
Some of the different opinions on this matter is that, as a LL player I will not want to lose against
a player who’s not playing better than me. As an ADS player I would like to have the possibility to
beat anyone, even if an opponent beat me 8-9 out of 10 games. So this is why different players choose to
play with different rules I guess.

@Lucifer:

Some of the different opinions on this matter is that, as a LL player I will not want to lose against
a player who’s not playing better than me. As an ADS player I would like to have the possibility to
beat anyone, even if an opponent beat me 8-9 out of 10 games. So this is why different players choose to play with different rules I guess.

So bad players who can only win with good dice play ADS?  And only the ‘better’ play always wins in LL?

That is how I interpret your post.  It’s not plainly stated, but it certainly is implied if not written between the lines.

@axis_roll:

So bad players who can only win with good dice play ADS?  And only the ‘better’ play always wins in LL?

That is how I interpret your post.  It’s not plainly stated, but it certainly is implied if not written between the lines.

How can you interpret my post this way?? I said: against a better LL player, or against a much better LL player.
Some players who will only play with LL are not good with ADS until they prove it, but I think generally the
best LL players will also be better than average in ADS. Jennifer has “34 wins - 13 losses” under her avatar.
She did not achieve 34 wins because of luck, maybe 25-30 wins because of luck, and maybe with average dice she
should win 40-45 games  :wink:
And I specifically stated that I can still not win against the best LL players I have met, that is until I become a
better LL player myself.
I’m also talking about a single game, although I have played several games against better LL players, it’s
very very hard to win against a much better LL player with LL rules in a LL game.
I have said several times that in a league, ladder, or ranking, any series of games, say more than 10 games,
it’s very obvious that no player can achieve many victories (more than 50%) with good luck and bad skills.
Seriously, I would really like to play an ADS game against the best LL players.
I would not expect to win, but who knows….

And only the ‘better’ play always wins in LL?

Isn’t that the point?

@Lucifer:

She did not achieve 34 wins because of luck, maybe 25-30 wins because of luck, and maybe with average dice she
should win 40-45 games

Hmmmm…I meant to say around 10 games possibly out of 34, not 30 (!) because of luck, more or less, and then it  could be that out of the 34 - 13 record, bad luck happen several times so it could also be 10 games +/- lost which
would be won with average dice.
But with so many games played, chances are that the dice rolls will balance good and bad luck,
although this is not guaranteed with only one player.
It’s a very big difference between luck in a single game, and luck when someone play 10 games or more
and both the wins and losses are recorded.
A difference between LL and ADS is that in a LL game if one of the players are not on the same level,
it’s much harder to win a single game, and there is luck in LL, but not much.

Jennifer, with that 34 - 13 record you would pwn me, even as axis with no bids  :wink:

I admit, a few of the games I won were because of luck, but that’s about equal to the number of games I’ve lost because of luck.

Thing that gets me is all of my off the wall, whacked out ideas work perfectly in LL.  But in ADS they normally get shot down.

Thing that gets me is all of my off the wall, whacked out ideas work perfectly in LL.  But in ADS they normally get shot down.

This only because you do not persevere over bad luck. You cannot expect LL’s strategy to manifest itself in ADS as often, but if it’s actually good planning, then it should more often than not.

I admit, a few of the games I won were because of luck, but that’s about equal to the number of games I’ve lost because of luck.

So then how does one learn strategy games are thrown off by both good and bad luck?

I use both LL and ADS. Does LL makes it another game from ADS? To me not, generally speaking.
Most strats and tactics that I use, and also other players I have seen playing, are generally the same.
The overkill needed in ADS is not a different tactic imo.
I agree with Bean that in strategic sense the difference is minor, but I disagree with ADS vs LL on
a competitive level.
What is preferred and why? If LL is not fun then we use ADS. And vice versa.

I’m surprised that some players want to re-roll using ADS, what is the point using ADS if you are not happy
with the dice rolls?
I should not need to explain the difference between playing 40 games and playing a single game.
If some of you are in denial or not, weather you like it or hate it, it’s a fact that anything can happen in a dice game.
Maybe thats what make ADS fun to play.
Actually I would prefer that LL didn’t exist :)
It would make A&A gaming easier.
But LL is here is not going away, LL is almost like porn eh…
One difference for me is that I still haven’t played anyone who seemed unbeatable to me in ADS, but with
LL thats different.
There are several players who will beat me more often than 50% in a series of ADS or LL games. 
I’m not the best LL player nor the best ADS player.
The difference from a winning perspective is that you need several games to be sure to beat an opponent in ADS.
This is where LL and ADS differs.
ADS can fun as a fun game, but it’s not competitive compared to LL.
This is because you need a series of games to determine the best player in ADS.
Because there is much more luck in ADS than LL, if two players play 10 games with ADS this will
give numbers that are trustworthy.
In LL sometimes you need only one game against an opponent to know that he’s a much better LL player.
So in ADS you need several games, but in LL you usually need only one game to know
if you are on the same level 'as your opponent.

On a competitive level, LL makes it another game.

そしてそこに彼はまだ再度ある…. 彼が感じる従って不十分彼が軸線で会員からの注意を必要とした、彼の社会的な必要性を満たされて得るために.orgを同盟するので彼の狂犬病の打撃が本質何でもへ加えないことを身に着けていたが、ポスターとのより多くの問題を起こすこと数週間後後出て来るNuno。

LOL :-D

LL is mostly an attempt to warrant/validate weaker strategic/tactical concepts through rule change

Funny, I think the exact opposite - ADS validates bad strategies because of hot dice. Everyone who defends ADS is so hot on shooting LL but don’t realize their own hypocrisy. How can you have good strategy with good or bad dice canceling it? I think players should be equally skilled in both LL and ADS, being good in just one or the other just isn’t suffcient.

For me it is the adaptability of the player to good and bad dice that happens in ADS that makes me favor it.

In LL your major battles are effectively foregone conclusions, + or - a few units.  Your strafes can be perfectly planned and executed.

In ADS, neither of those is possible.

And personally, I think that the gamer who can best take advantage of both hot AND cold dice is a superior gamer due to their flexibility… which demonstrates a superior tactical and strategic skill in my opinion.

In LL, you end up with Agent Smith’s who have years of work with sims to lock down specific strats that always work.

In LL your major battles are effectively foregone conclusions, + or - a few units.  Your strafes can be perfectly planned and executed.

Hence why it is PERFECT for ANALYZING strategies, not having to toss out every other game due to hot dice.

In ADS, neither of those is possible.

How possible is strategy in ADS? I’m beginning to ignore posts that glorify one side or the other, because it’s hypocritical not to look at how either one damages the game.

And personally, I think that the gamer who can best take advantage of both hot AND cold dice is a superior gamer due to their flexibility… which demonstrates a superior tactical and strategic skill in my opinion.

There’s nothing you can do to adapt to bad dice, except to play in a losing fashion and hope the enemy makes a mistake or take ridiculous chances. There’s nothing tactical about hoping for good dice to correct your game.