What is LL?

It stands for Low Luck.

It is and alternative dice rolling method designed to remove extreme results.

You simply add up all the attacking or defending points then divide by 6 and that equals the total hits.  You would then roll for any remainder for an additional hit.  For Example,

5 inf, 4 arm attack 5 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm.

Attacker points:
5 * 1 + 4 * 3 = 17

17/6 = 2 hits remainder 5.  So you would roll for a 5 or less for a third hit.

Def:
6 * 2 + 1 * 3 = 15. 
15/6 = 2 ihits remainder 3.  So you would roll for a 3 or less for a third hit

Ex 2

4 inf, 2 rt, 1 arm vs.  5 inf, 1 ftr

Att = 21 + 42 + 1*3 = 13

2 hits remainder 1

Def = 52 + 14 = 14

2 hits remainder 2.

You should note that it drastically changes the game, also.

For instance, in Revised Edition of Axis and Allies; a Low Luck player, on Russia 1, might make the following Combat Moves:

3 Infantry, Armor, Fighter to Norway
** Odds of Success in Low Luck: 80%
** Odds of Success with Dice: 60%

3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter to Ukraine
** Odds of Success in Low Luck: 86%
** Odds of Success with Dice: 64%

6 Infantry, Artillery, Armor to West Russia
** Odds of Success in Low Luck: 100%
** Odds of Success with Dice: 90%

Odds to win all 3 battles: 68.8% in Low Luck
Odds to win all 3 battles: 34.6% with Actual Dice

As you can see, LL doubles your chances of winning multiple victories.

Also LL will change your purchases as well.  An Infantry + Armor has the exact same chance to win a battle as an Infantry + Artillery, therefore, why blow the extra IPC when you don’t need it?

Likewise, battles with 2 Infantry vs 1 Infantry are improved chances of Attacker victory since both of those infantry now roll 1 die to hit with a 1 or 2, vs rolling 2 dice with a hit on only a 1.  (67% with Dice, 71% with LL; it’s a small difference here, but significant enough to make it more viable to make those attacks.)

This is not to say LL is good or bad, just be aware of the huge changes in odds to win battles, changes in units you need to purchase for long run battles (ie: 3 submarines will ALWAYS sink a carrier and 2 fighters in one round of battle and the most you can lose is 2 of the 3 submarines (Carrier = 3, Fighter = 4, Fighter = 4 total = 11.  Divide by 6 you get 1 hit plus 1 Die that hits on a 5 or less.)).

Wow, I meant to ask this at one point when I kept seeing LL pop up.  Thanks for explaining it!

Yes, that was very helpful.  Thanks Darth Jen. 
Now I understand that low luck isn’t for me.  :-D

No problem, TG, kat, Hannibal, and everyone else.

Please do not think that I am saying that Low Luck is bad, though.  Low Luck is an interesting way to play the game of Axis and Allies (all versions).  I was only attempting to demonstrate how the game of Low Luck is significantly different, in certain aspects, to the game of Axis and Allies using dice.

It should be said that it does take some getting used too before you can get a “feel” for a battle in Low Luck.  It sounds simple and straight forward, but sometimes what you think would be plenty of units to win a battle really is not - either for offense or defense!  So I recommend using Dan Rempel’s AACalc at www.frood.net until you are comfortable. (You may use it for actual dice and something called “No Luck” as well if you want.)

I realize that his site does not support Anniversary directly.  You can, however, play with the unit types to get things to fit almost perfectly.  (For instance, if you have defending submarines you can enter them as defending transports since in AAR transports defend at 1 and submarines in AA50 defend at 1 instead of 2.)  BTW, if you do want to use round 2 or later for a naval conflict, because the way his site is set up, I recommend entering damaged battleships as either attacking bombers or defending fighters.  Otherwise, the display will be confusing (at least it is for me, it is.)

@Cmdr:

You should note that it drastically changes the game, also.

For instance, in Revised Edition of Axis and Allies; a Low Luck player, on Russia 1, might make the following Combat Moves:

3 Infantry, Armor, Fighter to Norway
** Odds of Success in Low Luck: 80%
** Odds of Success with Dice: 60%

3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter to Ukraine
** Odds of Success in Low Luck: 86%
** Odds of Success with Dice: 64%

6 Infantry, Artillery, Armor to West Russia
** Odds of Success in Low Luck: 100%
** Odds of Success with Dice: 90%

Odds to win all 3 battles: 68.8% in Low Luck
Odds to win all 3 battles: 34.6% with Actual Dice

As you can see, LL doubles your chances of winning multiple victories.

This does not have any effect in reality because the bids are the same in LL and ADS in AAR.

Not in bids maybe, but trades are changed drastically. And better don’t talk about naval battles. Of course, in Jen’s example, 3 subs having 1st strike would auto kill the AC, but it doesn’t get the defense roll, so defender would get 1 auto kill and a 2’s roll (total firepower 8, not 11  :wink: )

I hate auto rolls, that’s the reason I hate LL and the reason because I don’t like defense zero trannies. I like being last ones to kill, but It’s ridiculous 1 lone fig killing infinite trannies without effort or chance of escape  :|

If LL or ADS does not change the bid levels, then it does not change the balance. This is AAR though, it is possible that ADS or LL will be different in AA50.

Subotai:

I am only referring to the fact that Low Luck changes the odds, sometimes drastically, and not always in the defender’s advantage (actually it’s my personal belief that the changes are almost always in the favor of the attacker.)

I referred to the three Russian battles as an example because they are a standard opening for me, regardless of LL or not. (Because Russia can do serious damage to Germany at moderate risk in ADS and at little risk in LL.)  Those three battles have a huge shift in probabilities.

Of course, the Axis may decide to bid more, or bid those units in different places to negate that advantage to Russia.  But that does not change that the advantage is certainly in Russia’s favor there.

Functioneta:  Thanks, yes, I did mistakenly give the defender the carrier defense as well and they would not have that.

So 3 Submarines vs Carrier, 2 Fighters would be a loss of 1 Submarine and only a 33% chance of losing a second submarine.  Meanwhile, the carrier and the two fighters would be lost.  Attacker losses 8 IPC, Defender losses 36 IPC (or 34 IPC in AA50).

I’m a LL-player, and (for the most part) I agree with Jen about what she’s saying about LL. I would like to make a remark though:

CmdrJennifer is right when she says the odds change in LL. That’s true, since one cannot take away extreme dice rolls without changing some battle odds. What people should keep in mind though, is that this only affects a small portion of the game. The soul of this game isn’t gambling with dice, it’s about inventing neat strategies and outsmarting your opponent. And that’s a thing LL has anxiously preserved: the gameplay of A&A isn’t changed when playing LL. It’s not because a few tactical jokes or short term moves tend to be more predictive, the course and feel of an A&A game is changed. Ofcourse, there are those who like the occasional heroic victory against all odds (and the pathetic defeat when everything looked great), but for everyone else, there’s LL, preserving people from teeth grinding and head smashing, offering instead a smile on a resigning player’s face, since he knew his opponent simply had a better plan.

To summarize, LL doesn’t change the game drastically, and imho it makes it much better. Anyone who’s up for a game of A&A Anniversary-LL can pm me (or better, DY, since he’s got more spare time than I do ;) ).

@ Jennifer, you may be right about LL changes the odds, but this doesn’t change the game balance, at least not in AAR.

It does not change the bid levels, and it does not favor one side or the other. We should at least agree with this.

LL vs ADS does not change the reality of gaming in AAR. It’s a different state of mind when playing, it really is, but it does not change anything that makes it rather different, more than tech i.e.

I guess since we’re having this discussion, and this is also the AA50 subforum, then the question is if it changes anything in AA50. Its too soon to know for sure.

I think it’s possible but very unlikely.

Yea, I don’t remember saying that the bid itself changed, I even went back to look again briefly.  I don’t think the bid amount does change, I do think the placement of the extra units might change though.

Anyway, I don’t think there are many people who would make that Russia 1 attack in ADS that I listed, but I’m sure there are plenty who would attempt it in LL because the odds are significantly improved.  It’s something to take into consideration.  I’m not saying it is bad, but it’s different and requires different skills and tactics.

A more common issue:

2 Fighters will kill 1 Submarine 100% of the time.  So if you have an ally that can clear a submarine blocking your fleet with his two fighters, it’s not guaranteed to work, before it might not have worked.  So as the defender, you’re going to have to look at the board and assume that 2 fighters are going to clear your pickets at the worst possible time because it’s impossible for them to make the attack and not clear them.

The other thing you need to internalize is the fact that it no longer matters how many tanks you have, it only matters what your combined punch is.  In ADS you can look at your units and figure about half your tanks will hit on defense and about a third of your infantry.  That number might be higher than the number you get when you add up your units and run a LL game, or it might be lower.

@Cmdr:

The other thing you need to internalize is the fact that it no longer matters how many tanks you have, it only matters what your combined punch is.  In ADS you can look at your units and figure about half your tanks will hit on defense and about a third of your infantry.  That number might be higher than the number you get when you add up your units and run a LL game, or it might be lower.

That is not true. LL attack: 10 infantry vs 3 ftrs. Attack punch = 10 Defence punch = 12

First rnd of battle, infs will hit one for sure, lets say they miss @4. Ftrs will hit 2 for sure. Next rnd, 8 infs will hit one for sure, lets say they miss @2, ftrs get one hit + roll @2. Even if the ftrs hit @2, the infantry is left with 6 units for the last rnd of attack. Even better if it was 2 art + 6 infs. The attacker and defender got the same punch, but the infantry + artillery guys are gonna win this over the airforce.

With tanks it would be 4 tanks vs 3 ftrs. Or 3 bmrs vs 4 tanks. Tanks will win this battles because of numbers. Attack punch is the same as defense punch. More numbers = better odds for winning the battle.

That’s what I said, Subotai.

It no longer matters how many tanks you have, you cannot count on your tanks scoring slightly better than expected in LL like you can in ADS.

For instance, in LL it does not matter a lick if you attack with 1 Infantry and 1 Armor or if you attack with 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery; either way you have a punch of 4.  So how needed is the extra 1 IPC blown on the tank?

You still need some tanks, but the importance of the stack of armor is pretty much gone in LL.  It’s been replaced with Infantry and a handful of Artillery as your main defense since they are more cost effective and the tanks are not needed to trade anymore, they’ve been replaced with an artillery unit for 1 IPC less and 100% effectiveness.

@Cmdr:

It no longer matters how many tanks you have, you cannot count on your tanks scoring slightly better than expected in LL like you can in ADS.

For instance, in LL it does not matter a lick if you attack with 1 Infantry and 1 Armor or if you attack with 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery; either way you have a punch of 4.  So how needed is the extra 1 IPC blown on the tank?

After the first rnd of attack, then the tanks matters because we will pick infs as casualties first, and the tanks do matter both in LL and ADS. Tanks can move 2, that matters.

In LL it will matter as much as in ADS if you attack with inf + art or inf + tanks, because tanks still attack and defend @3.

And if you are counting on your tanks scoring slightly better then average then you’re counting of Lady Luck.

And what does “expected” really mean, is it average dice rolls, or better?

The reason why it matters for me with tanks + infs, is that my infs tend to attack and be attacked, so my infs dies, sadly. The extra ipc for the tanks is needed because tanks defends and attacks @3. Artillery attacks and defends @2.
Thats why, + tanks move 2 spaces.

It’s an interesting tradeoff.  As an attacker you gain from never having a 90% battle blow up in your face, but you lose because you’ll also never have a successful attack that leaves you with “bonus” units that should’ve died had the defender rolled better.  I imagine you’d be perfectly happy with that.

I’d like to try the variant sometime.  It doesn’t strike me as Low Luck so much as Low Frustration.  :-D

Nah, plenty of battles are still perfectly frustrating, I’d even wager most of them in any given game are since you’re probably doing what I do:  Inf + Fig vs Inf for most of your battles.

What you are trading is the ability to reduce a strafe to a matter of pure formula in exchange for those battles where you’d get virtually wiped out or virtually unscathed.

Part of the problem some people have is it allows you to measure, to the last tank, the exact amount of units needed to win a battle for a capitol.  I can’t really see as I blame them considering I normally go into those kinds of battles with 150% of the units I need in a dice game. (I always seem to get fragged in round 1, I dunno, I think the global warming gods hate me or something. /shrug.)  So I over compensate.  But if I could measure it out, EXACTLY, I know, beyond a doubt, that I would not get fragged in any given round, then I could possibly go into those battles with 103% of what I need (the 3% to make up for the tiny fluctuation in major battles given by LL vs ADS where I’d need 50% to cover my arse, so to speak.)