I believe ADS stands for “Automated Dice Server” or something similar
I like the analogy of ADS compared to poker. In both games, luck plays a part in ultimately determining who wins and who loses. However, a seasoned player understands this, and makes decisions by weighing the risks involved in each action. Also, in both cases, you can outplay your opponent and still lose the game. I don’t have a problem with that because that is the nature of the game. The outcome of who wins or who loses does not necessarily determine who is the more skilled player in these games. But that is part of what makes the game interesting, and IMO more appealing to a wider audience.
I like the analogy of ADS compared to poker. In both games, luck plays a part in ultimately determining who wins and who loses. However, a seasoned player understands this, and makes decisions by weighing the risks involved in each action. Also, in both cases, you can outplay your opponent and still lose the game. I don’t have a problem with that because that is the nature of the game.
That is my position in a nutshell.
What does irk me, is this elitist attitude amongst some LLers who believe that those who play dice are a bunch of newbs who can only win by fluking out, and that dice is somehow less serious. I accept that my preference for dice is just that, a preference, but my preference is not for crazy dice variance, but for ideas that can only be expressed with such variance as a potential.
Based on my short time around these boards, I haven’t gotten the impression that LL players have an elitist attitude. Perhaps you are referring to people you know personally?
I think both ways of playing have their merits. I personally enjoy dice more simply because it’s more fun. The jubilation and frustration that comes from rolling the dice is a large part of why I enjoy AA.
LL is a quick and easy way to calculate how you think the battle will most likely go, and also how many casualties you expect to take. It can help in making decisions, but I don’t think it ought to take the place throwing dice anymore than card counting should replace cards in black jack.
One last thing, LL does not mean no luck, a die is still rolled and small battles can still go either way, ie 4 inf attacking 1 inf and loosing. It makes the big battles go the way they should, but still has risk management for deciding ‘do i send the DD and fig, or the DD and bomb vs that german sub that can sink 2 trannies next turn’ as with the first option, you could roll a 6 and him a 1 (has happened to me).
But I do see the merit in dice, it is annoying how powerful planes become in low luck, in how static naval and air builds become (just skirting the odds), and how you can perfectly strafe. But I’ll take that over getting diced any day in Moscow.
I think Turtle hits the nail on the head. I doubt Patton told von Rundstedt that he would be taking the Siegfried line because he was attacking with 5 infantry and armored divisions to von Runstedts 2. The battle had to be fought and thats what rolling dice is all about.
Thats the problem with the dice in A&A, the dice does not simulate real battles, although it is meant to do this.
If the Vietnam war was fought with ADS, you could have up to 500.000 dead American soldiers (worst case) instead of 60.000. 200.000 causalities is what you could risk if you were playing regular dice (war) game. This is the extreme variation which happens in dice games.
The nam war was lost mainly b/c political factors, not military failures. In A&A there is (still) no option for political factors, just plain simple military units, land sea and air forces fighting against each other. Or in the Gulf war, we could have 50.000 dead allied soldiers instead of 1000(?). In the Iraq war, coalition forces could very well loose 10.000 troops instad of 1000-2000. If NATO was playing with ADS setting in Afghanistan, the political risk would be too high to send ground troops at all. As some battles in real life goes horribly wrong, you don’t loose the whole war b/c of bad luck, which happens in A&A from 1% to 40% of all games played with ADS setting.
I know how people can feel about dice. But I mean, when we play the board game with friends, we have to accept the luck (and it can turn one side or another). If we start playing with simulators, we lose the fun of throwing the Dices, of insulting each other’s luck.
This is my opinion.
Robert
I do not believe that dice is intended to simulate real battles. This is a board game first and foremost, not a war simulation.
Dice adds an element of unpredictability. Some see that as being fun and exciting. Others find it frustrating and detracts from their enjoyment. That’s basically what it boils down to. I don’t think the merits of dice play should be weigh based on how well it simulates real life war. That’s a totally different context.
just one more time before i bow out of this discussion:
determining the better player more accurately, or getting closer to average results in battles to make certain strats ‘work out’ more often, or having the superior player win more regularly as the result of less variance, is completely beside the point.
so you are playing dice, you outplay your opponent, you achieve 85% odds in a decisive battle, and lose. as the result, you lose the game. so what? you played better, made better decisions, took your shot, and then lost. the only thing you have been denied in all of this is the satisfaction of winning.
take LL. now, you have a game system where certain strategical concepts have been nerfed considerably. what have you lost? a rich tapestry of ideas.
fine, play LL. it is a very good game in its own right. just don’t call it A&A.
just one more time before i bow out of this discussion:
determining the better player more accurately, or getting closer to average results in battles to make certain strats ‘work out’ more often, or having the superior player win more regularly as the result of less variance, is completely beside the point.
so you are playing dice, you outplay your opponent, you achieve 85% odds in a decisive battle, and lose. as the result, you lose the game. so what? you played better, made better decisions, took your shot, and then lost. the only thing you have been denied in all of this is the satisfaction of winning.
take LL. now, you have a game system where certain strategical concepts have been nerfed considerably. what have you lost? a rich tapestry of ideas.
fine, play LL. it is a very good game in its own right. just don’t call it A&A.
If you play Texas hold’em you know if other players can have a stronger hand than you. In A&A ADS games you don’t know how lucky you or your opponent gets until after the dice are rolled. In poker, one game is one rnd, one evening can be 20-50-80 deals/rnds. In poker, you can see your winning chances before you bet, in dice games you see the chances after you attacked. In poker, if you have bad luck, you can just leave the table and not waste any money. In A&A, you concede a whole game.
Whats the point of playing if dice is what decides the outcome, and not the decisions of the players? Why spend many hours, perhaps 2-9 hours on a game, and then you loose b/c of bad luck not bad play? The difference between LL and ADS is that you have to play many more games to be sure to determine the better player, maybe 10, or maybe 20-30 games. Some LL games are also decided by luck, but not so many as in ADS. My guess is that luck decides 1%-49% of all ADS games, and 1%-10% of all LL games. The reason why I prefer LL is b/c a strategy game should be won by the better player, not by the luckiest player.
The reason why I play A&A instead of chess is that A&A is more war-like, and it’s a modern strategy game, while chess is an old strategy game.
The whole point of playing A&A is to play a strategy game in which the better play wins as often as possible, just like chess. If not, then you might as well play yahtzee or even better, Ludo. If you didn’t try Ludo yet, you’re gonna love it. Dice plays a huge role in Ludo :evil:
If you use bids in classic or revised, don’t call it A&A. If you play w/o tech in classic or revised, don’t call it A&A. None of this are official rules.
@Craig:
Playing with dice gives the game that certain “edge” that comes from the unknown.
(snipped…)
For me, the fog of war is very present and very dense, also in LL games. In my LL games, the whoops and groans comes from bad decisions, horrible mistakes, bad overview, not seeing 1-2 punch etc.
In my LL games, I am never certain of anything, until I see the opponent types gg :-D
And when I’m conceding, the process is usually just as slow in ADS games as in LL games, although LL games always makes it past the first rnd.
When we “take out the dice”, we don’t remove the dice altogether, we reduce the randomness. Players who have never tried LL would be amazed on how much randomness there can be in some LL games.
As for computation, not even Deep Blue, or Hydra can compute A&A, it’s much too complex. Human brains can’t even compute chess, and A&A is much more complex in possible number of movements, than chess.
The TripleA weak AI, and the AI in the GTO version is the “best number-crunching supercomputer” today… :roll:
I couldn’t agree more. These are my sentiments but I didn’t have the time to articulate them as eloquently as you on my first post. I’d throw some karma your way if I could.
It looks like someone got in before me …. my last post was in response to Craig’s.
Thats what 25+ years of AA and SOM baseball ftf tell me
jeez! strat-o-matic baseball?!?! i used to play that all the time!! do they even still make it?
Yep strato is still going strong. You can now get the seasons on cards or cd-rom
wow i may have to look into getting into it again. do you know where i can find it?
You can order online at strat-o-matic.com They also have capability for online play. I think they are still located in Glen Head, Long Island NY. When we were younger our league always made the Strato Review as we always purchased the first set of cards on their opening day in January
