LL v ADS

@axis_roll:

I may throw 6 inf and a tank in Ukraine for the purposes described above.  Consider Germany having to trade Ukaine, Balkans, and Belorussia with stacks described above.  In ADS, these stacks can be rather problematic.

Not a strategy for every round, but this is a strategy this is non-existant/poor in LL.

In 20%-30% of all ADS games this can be problematic yes…  If you can throw 6 inf + 1 tank to waste then Russia is in
very good shape or else this is a bad move.
If Germany must trade Balkans also the allies already have contained Germany.
In most battles, and most games the dice in ADS does not determine the battles, because players use overkill in ADS
games, as opposed to LL games with 2 inf + 1 bmr :)
You cannot trust the dice to be average in important battles in ADS games.
Thats why G should overkill Ukr in that example, else then G is doomed, but then again not if it’s ADS cause you can always get lucky…  :roll:

The idea of throwing 6 Russian Infantry/ 1 Russian Armor in is to make Germany chose between hitting 6 Inf/Arm in Ukraine, 4 Inf/4 Arm in Belo and 8 inf in Karelia. (Just to pick some arbitrary numbers.)

it’s not a matter of if Russia’s in great shape or not.  It’s to make Germany give up attacks at all or face expensive battles.  But in LL that doesn’t really work out since Germany just calculates the minimum required units to kill the Russians and maybe the British in Karelia and doesn’t face the possibility of catastrophic defeat.

It’s an ADS tactic used to scare the enemy into not attacking you, or focusing too heavily on your one territory at the expense of other attacks they could make if the dice ran perfectly down the middle (like they do in LL.)

I admit, I use LL to mentally calculate how a battle should turn out before I use the calculators to examine likely out comes.  But I VERY RARELY see the calculators line up with the LL estimates and even more rarely do the results of the ADS ever line up with the LL and that’s very easy to explain:

Easier to get hits in LL.  Easier to compute force needed.  Easier to gauge results.  Easier to cut battles closer to the marginal line with assured victory.

We’ve already proven that mathematically you are more likely to get a hit using LL with multiple units then you are with ADS.  We’ve shown how you can tailor your responses just right to get the result you want.  We’ve proven that you can be just as offensive with lesser units in LL then you can with expensive units in LL resulting in different buys (and thus different tactics.)

What more do you want before you finally admit that LL is NOT the same game or tactics as ADS?

and that is why the nature of the games are diffrent and give you diffrent games. if in ADS you have to over kill, then you are making fewer attacks per turn as you could see a front with 2 teritories with 3I each, in LL that’s 1 kill on round 1, in ADS that could be 0-3 kills; now say you as the attacker can hit both or ether with 2 fighters, 2 tanks, and say 4I to ether (but not 8 to ether). so what do you do?
in LL you can send in 4I and 1 tank and 1 fighter into each, as the attacker you get 1.8 kills first round with each attack (lets say you only get the 1 kill in both), then you take 1 fatality, next round you still get 1 kill with 50% chance of geting the last guy, well the deffender has a 60% chance of killing one more infantry. say in both casses you both hit on the last shot. so you take 2 teritories with 2I and 1 tank.
in ADS then you would send in more then just 4I, 1 tank, and 1 fighter as the odds are still in your favor, but there is a chance that you would start taking tank losses or at the vary least you would have fewer Infantry for the counter attack. OR you would leave the Tanks out of the one strike and just move in the 4I and fighters.
my point is, i may have never played LL, but i can tell by knowing with prity good accuracy what i will lose/take in each battle that i will change the way i play as i can plan vital battles better and don’t have to play like i expect bad rolls on my invasion of normandy well the Germans roll like mad men.

@Cmdr:

It’s an ADS tactic used to scare the enemy into not attacking you,

Oh my pants are wet already, I’m so cared of your ADS tactics  :roll: :evil:

I fear the Dice Gods and no one or nothing else, whatsoever in this world.

@Cmdr:

What more do you want before you finally admit that LL is NOT the same game or tactics as ADS?

Stronger pills from my psychiatrist. Your delusions is stronger than mine, I admit it.

For example, I might want to throw said Russian inf and tanks to bleed Germany dry while building my UK forces (since they attack Germany first).  Now would I put 4 Russian tanks at risk… probably not.  But your example is a poor one.  I may throw 6 inf and a tank in Ukraine for the purposes described above.  Consider Germany having to trade Ukaine, Balkans, and Belorussia with stacks described above.  In ADS, these stacks can be rather problematic.

Not a strategy for every round, but this is a strategy this is non-existant/poor in LL.

It’s enough that Darth Maximus agrees with me. Just because you cannot strafe precisely does not mean you should not try.  Do not be so naive as to think that your opponent thinks the same you do and will not attempt to take all the stacks down or one very hard and the other one strafing.

@Bean:

For example, I might want to throw said Russian inf and tanks to bleed Germany dry while building my UK forces (since they attack Germany first).  Now would I put 4 Russian tanks at risk… probably not.  But your example is a poor one.  I may throw 6 inf and a tank in Ukraine for the purposes described above.  Consider Germany having to trade Ukaine, Balkans, and Belorussia with stacks described above.  In ADS, these stacks can be rather problematic.

Not a strategy for every round, but this is a strategy this is non-existant/poor in LL.

It’s enough that Darth Maximus agrees with me.

So silly of us to argue with the end-all be-all of A&A knowledge: Darth Maximus.

Is there an alter so that I too may worship his omnipotence?

@Bean:

For example, I might want to throw said Russian inf and tanks to bleed Germany dry while building my UK forces (since they attack Germany first).  Now would I put 4 Russian tanks at risk… probably not.  But your example is a poor one.  I may throw 6 inf and a tank in Ukraine for the purposes described above.  Consider Germany having to trade Ukaine, Balkans, and Belorussia with stacks described above.  In ADS, these stacks can be rather problematic.

Not a strategy for every round, but this is a strategy this is non-existant/poor in LL.

Just because you cannot strafe precisely does not mean you should not try.

Well, no that’s the point.  You SHOULD not straffe unless you do not fear getting stuck.  That’s the problem with the hit and run… you can get stuck and those Russian 6 inf and tank were merely bait for the trap.  Again, a strategy that can not be utilized in LL.

And again, I am not saying that it’s better or worse… just that it DOES change the game.  Is the change ground breaking?  No.

But an LL newbie may not be as aware of these key kind of differences that exist between ADS and LL.

So silly of us to argue with the end-all be-all of A&A knowledge: Darth Maximus.

Is there an alter so that I too may worship his omnipotence?

No need to exaggerate, also U-505 agrees, one of the best players on this site. At least I have some high profile members so it’s not a cult =p

Well, no that’s the point.  You SHOULD not straffe unless you do not fear getting stuck.  That’s the problem with the hit and run… you can get stuck and those Russian 6 inf and tank were merely bait for the trap.  Again, a strategy that can not be utilized in LL.

And again, I am not saying that it’s better or worse… just that it DOES change the game.  Is the change ground breaking?  No.

But an LL newbie may not be as aware of these key kind of differences that exist between ADS and LL.

2 things, first I don’t think we really disagree then. LL does not make a groundbreaking difference.

Second, baiting like that invites not just a strafe, but a full move-in. Obviously there are many considerations in play here, but if I can bust up that many units by sending my stack en masse and still have my capital defended and still deadzone the territory I left and still have enough defense in the territory I took, then I’m in great shape.

For instance I have a big stack in E. Europe. You bait with 4 inf 4 arm Karelia. I send the big stack in, and make sure my capital is guarded. You’re down 8 units costing me 3 units, and if I did it right you should not have enough to counter Karelia, and also should still be scared to move into E. Europe because I can hit from both Germany and Karelia. There could be a lot of variations and we could discuss this endlessly, but baiting is very difficult and costly. Just because you cannot strafe perfectly does not make automatically make baiting a great move in ADS, which I think we both agree on. You have to be very careful of how you bait - too much and I’m moving in, too little and I don’t care or use fighters.

And yes when you fear getting stuck, you should think twice - but you should still consider strafing. Just strafe with say enough to take out 75% of the units in one go. If you go with much more then you are very likely to take the territory,if you go less it’s not worth it, but there is still a way to strafe. It will not be as rewarding, but you should still think about it.

@Bean:

So silly of us to argue with the end-all be-all of A&A knowledge: Darth Maximus.

Is there an alter so that I too may worship his omnipotence?

No need to exaggerate, also U-505 agrees, one of the best players on this site. At least I have some high profile members so it’s not a cult =p

I’ve never said one way was better.  I said they were different, I gave reasons how and said it was personal choice/preference.  You were the one to start drawing a line of who was on the ‘right’ side, lining up A&A gurus behind you.

It sounds like you agree with me that straffing is much less of a strategy in ADS.  Conversely, baiting CAN be utilized more.  The ‘baiting’ strategy, IMHO of over 500 A&A games, can be very effective for the allies when playing KGF, trying to bleed Germany dry.

If the allies first goal is to contain Germany, baiting helps achieve this more quickly.  Germany is forced to either not straffe or do it less efficiently (75% by your numbers)… and when you think of stacks of 5 inf or so, it’s hard to straffe so precisely.

Like many discussions about this game, especially past the first opening round or two, it is extremely hard to draw concrete, firm conclusions since there are so many variables in play in a game at a specific point in time.

Discussions like this MUST be generalizations, and it is that level to which I speak.

PS.

How do I sign up for the guru newsletter??

I agree strafing is less of a strategy in ADS, but I think just as LL newbies may not understand it, so also ADS newbies don’t understand that they can’t just bait left and right, or they will get eaten up with less forces.

The one thing I disagree with you is that you think you shouldn’t even try to strafe if there is any doubt whatsoever. I have been saying consistently and with reason that you should not be scared of strafing.

I take this from  your statement:

Well, no that’s the point.  You SHOULD not straffe unless you do not fear getting stuck.

I’m simply saying, and I do not think we are even disagreeing, that you should keep strafing in mind always.

nd when you think of stacks of 5 inf or so, it’s hard to straffe so precisely.

Oh, but is it? If there’s no AA gun, then 3-4 inf + mass airforce…and even if there is one, maybe it’s time to move in. The Allies may not have enough forces to counter a big move in if they threw their inf into the bait - and it’s going to be harder to counter with that AA gun staring at you. It’s possible they’re using a trojan horse but forgot to put the trapdoor in. Like I said, baiting is more of a strategy in ADS, but it’s hardly easy to pull off.

You were the one to start drawing a line of who was on the ‘right’ side, lining up A&A gurus behind you.

You’re simply exaggerating. I consistently said we may not even be disagreeing prior to this post, yet you seem to think that I’m attacking you or something. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m not.

How do I sign up for the guru newsletter??

You need to join teh jenforces!

@Bean:

The one thing I disagree with you is that you think you shouldn’t even try to strafe if there is any doubt whatsoever. I have been saying consistently and with reason that you should not be scared of strafing.

I take this from  your statement:

@axis_roll:

Well, no that’s the point.  You SHOULD not straffe unless you do not fear getting stuck.

Hmm.  I don’t think I said you should NEVER straffe.  I said you should straffe UNLESS you are worried about getting stuck.  However, many times in ADS, you CAN and WILL get stuck when you thought you should never have gotten stuck (computing at your 75% hits), or even worse, you do poorly on your straffing roll (because you targetted only 75%) and actually LOSE units in the exchange.  Whoops.

These things do not happen in LL.

And I agree we’re disagreeing in a very subtle manner.

However, many times in ADS, you CAN and WILL get stuck when you thought you should never have gotten stuck (computing at your 75% hits), or even worse, you do poorly on your straffing roll (because you targetted only 75%) and actually LOSE units in the exchange.  Whoops.

That’s why you should practice using a calculator. For instance, if there is a force of 8 inf 8 arm (bait) in Karelia, and I have say…40 inf 8 arm 5 fig 1 bom available to strike, I would probably go in with 25 inf 8 arm 5 fig 1 bom. There’s only a 4% chance of taking that territory, and most of the time the trade will be favorable; i.e. I will lose inf and will burn off their inf and some arm. Of course as with all dice it can turn out unfavorable, but just chalk it up as one of those bad battles. The more you’re scared of taking the territory the less inf you send in, and yes at some point it’s clearly not favorable, but you should not be scared simply because it can and will happen - you have to think how often it will happen in the long run. For every time you get stuck (that 4%) you could just as easily have done a perfect strafe or nearly perfect strafe. If you get reverse diced like you don’t do a lot and the enemy does a lot, oh well, that happens in any battle you participate in.

Also if you took the territory, that’s not the end of the world. If the forces remaining in Karelia are vulnerable, then reinforce them. If they aren’t, which is likely since probably the bait is simply to get you going in the wrong direction, then you’ll just have to retreat out of E. Europe and deadzone that, and next turn strafe from Karelia + Germany + retreat to Germany.

And I agree we’re disagreeing in a very subtle manner.

But would you disagree that we’re agreeing about the degree of disagreement that we are not agreeing about? Wait, did that make any sense?  :lol:

See, you’re speaking in specific examples, I am speaking in generalities.  Plus your examples are poor ones, at best.

I would never leave a stack of 8 inf and 8 tank as bait if there was 40 inf, 8 arm, 5 ftr and a bomber next to me!

C’mon!  If you are going to use examples, use realistic, practical ones.  Now I just might leave stacks of 5 inf around that German monster EEU stack in kar, belo and ukraine.  In MY (more realistic strategic example), Germany would be hard pressed to straffe my 3 stacks of 5 inf in ADS.

And you also speak of reinforcing IF you take it.  Well hell, then we’re talking about something DIFFERENT than hit and runs now, aren’t we?

I would never leave a stack of 8 inf and 8 tank as bait if there was 40 inf, 8 arm, 5 ftr and a bomber next to me!

See, that’s the whole point. In either ADS or LL you would not do that.

C’mon!  If you are going to use examples, use realistic, practical ones.  Now I just might leave stacks of 5 inf around that German monster EEU stack in kar, belo and ukraine.  In MY (more realistic strategic example), Germany would be hard pressed to straffe my 3 stacks of 5 inf in ADS.

How’s that a better example? I already told you, Germany has enough figs + 3 inf to crush one stack, then they can move hard into another stack. Then you’re 10 inf down at the cost of 3-4 inf. Losing all that kind of inf makes no sense, it means you can’t counter Germany’s stack or defend as well in any location.

And you also speak of reinforcing IF you take it.  Well hell, then we’re talking about something DIFFERENT than hit and runs now, aren’t we?

No, we’re talking about hit and runs, we’re just saying if you hit that ugly 4% that you didn’t want to, this is how you would mitigate the damage.

And also how am I not speaking in generalities? My first statement in this whole direction was “even though you cannot strafe precisely, does not mean you shouldn’t.” That’s about as general as it gets.

Excluding stacks of say 3-4 inf where trading may become more favorable, I honestly can’t think (off the top of my head) of a situation or stack where in LL you have favorable odds to strafe, but in ADS somehow your odds are bad such that it makes the strafe not doable.

Any strafe that is guaranteed to last more than one round is certainly a go since there is no element of accidental taking (at least not until the 2nd/3rd rd), and any one rd strafe that is profitable in LL should at worst be a 1 to 1 trade meaning the same hit points for Off and Def.  Obviously you’d like better than the 1 to 1, but if you have more hit points in LL you are going to have more attack points in ADS as well.

I suppose if you are going to strafe with less hit points on Off than Def, where you are counting on doing your damage 3 or 4 rds later, but even then…

the best example I can come up with right now would be an attack of something like:
21 inf, 11 arm vs. 12 inf, 16 arm
Where you want to cut into the defending arm.
But this battle is pretty negative (at 54 vs. 72) in LL and it is only after two rds where you end up with 11 arm vs. 12 arm (attacker lost 21 inf for 63 ipc and def lost 12 inf, 4 arm for 56 ipc).  The attacker losses on the exchange but maybe it was worth it to get to the arm. 
But if you are willing to take that chance in LL (with the early bad odds know you are going to come out negative) I’m not sure why all of a sudden in ADS it is bad to come out negative as well?  Why not take a shot (if you’d do that in LL), at least in ADS you can roll up and if you do roll up then great, if you roll down, then okay that sucks but he isn’t going to get 22 hits in 1 rd to pick off your arm.

Excluding stacks of say 3-4 inf where trading may become more favorable, I honestly can’t think (off the top of my head) of a situation or stack where in LL you have favorable odds to strafe, but in ADS somehow your odds are bad such that it makes the strafe not doable.

That’s exactly it. There’s no need to get overly fearful of taking the territory - just treat it appropriately. Bring enough forces such that the chance of taking the territory in 1-2 rounds is 5% or so, and the other 95% on average should favor you if it’s really a bait force and not a huge pile of infantry. Just because one is scared of taking the territory doesn’t mean you should always avoid it because there’s the slight chance of taking it.

@axis_roll:

And again, I am not saying that it’s better or worse…. just that it DOES change the game.  Is the change ground breaking?  No.

But an LL newbie may not be as aware of these key kind of differences that exist between ADS and LL.

And that, in a nut shell is my ENTIRE ARGUMENT.  ADS != LL (!= means Does Not Equal in programming speak).  They are DIFFERENT GAMES just as LHTR is a different game then OOB.  Or AARe is a different game then AAR.  They use the same pieces, they use the same board, they have a lot of similar characteristics, but they are different.

For me, every game is different, it doesn’t matter what rules we play.
The difference from ADS to LL which is not disputed, is the bigger variation.
I’m wondering if a G navy strat can work somehow in ADS, because players need overkill in attacking, as with LL
even if you can’t be sure of the exact number of units that will survive, it’s much easier to figure out how much
offense punch you need to be sure of at least winning a battle.
This may be a big difference for some players, to me this is a minor issue.
To know how much overkill that is needed in ADS games as opposed to LL, is not different from knowing if
units on the front line can be killed by the enemy units within reach in both ADS and LL games.
I played a game against Bean as allies with no bids for axis. This was no more different from all other games I played.
I did some attacks which I would not if I choose to play conservatively, but again, EVERY game is different, ADS or
LL is no more different than any other differences. The biggest difference imo, in the community where I play (lobby)
is the huge difference in player skills. What feels as big difference for me, is if I’m winning or losing, is my
opponent really good or a newb… I got killed by better players in multi and ADS and I got killed in 1vs1 LL.
I started winning some games, both in multiplayer ADS and 1vs1 LL. That is biggest difference for me.
It still is the same game even if there differences from 1vs1 to multiplayer, tech or no tech, bid or no bids, bid rules,
or ADS or LL.

What’s ADS and LL?