What do you think of this mixed LL and dice idea?

PS: please tell me IL that your picture is of the main man Neil Patrick Harris

of course the one and only!

To me, dice in Axis and Allies represent the friction and uncertainty of military engagements. (See Clausewitz for some awesome insight into the concept of friction in war)

It can represent heroic actions, poor communication, weather, a daring gambit, or a thousand other things that happen on battlefields that low luck never accounts for.

Live by the dice, die by the dice.

@ithkrall:

To me, dice in Axis and Allies represent the friction and uncertainty of military engagements. (See Clausewitz for some awesome insight into the concept of friction in war)

It can represent heroic actions, poor communication, weather, a daring gambit, or a thousand other things that happen on battlefields that low luck never accounts for.

Live by the dice, die by the dice.

I read Clausewitz, it was interesting. I didn’t notice any good strat suggestions for AA50 though  :roll:
Maybe I should read the last 2/3 parts of discourses of Livy? At least the first part was interesting, but also Machiavelli lacks a fundamental understanding of the core mechanisms in teh AA50 game  :roll:

I’m gonna have to repeat myself, the dice in A&A is not even slightly similar to real battles in real wars. Period. Maybe LL isn’t either, and now we’re getting to the point, A&A isn’t reality, it’s extremely far from reality.
If you play 5-15 games of A&A a week, then you see some very weird dice rolls, and quite often also, since there are many games and many dice rolls in ADS games. If there was a slight similarity between ADS dice results in A&A and reality, then we would here bad news from Afghanistan more often than now, i.e. not 2-3 soldiers killed in a car bomb, but 350 killed in an artillery attack against a secure NATO base  :evil:
How could the Talibans not be seen by allied ftrs/satellites etc??

Why doesn’t such things happen in real life? Because the dice in A&A is not reality, and it’s even close!
I could drag this even further, some weird dice results in A&A would be like Iran attacked the US+UK during the first months of the Iraq war, and every other Persian/Arabic nation also joined the Jihad against the decadent infidels from the western world. Now, would Donald Rumsfeld count for the unthinkable?? Not that US+UK would lose the war, but losses would be much higher than anticipated.
On a military scale, it can only be so far from reality before aliens invades the earth, but in (dice) games these things can happen.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that aa50 is an accurate WW2 sim?

I was suggesting that dice add randomness to a game, and that this randomness is akin to the concept of friction as defined by Clausewitz.

LL may reduce the randomness of the game and make it more like chess, but it can also make the game less interesting and more mechanical. Online I can see the appeal of it, doing LL for a game with friends around the table would be annoying to calculate and take a lot of the tactile pleasure of AA50 away. (My friends and I do love rolling dice)

Still though, this is a probability based game.  To curtail probability is to completley take out the mechanics of the game. Low luck poker or black jack would not be the same game.  If say in roulette 00 comes up 100 times in a row, people would say that is just not fair and odd defying.  What you really have to look at though, is that the probability “resets” every time to a 35 to 1 payout.  Some people call this a phenomenon, but it is nothing of the sort.  This is something that would get lost in LL, the entire mechanics of the game gets messed with too much.

The whole thing for me is to play for minimizing mistakes and making correct choices (which is the real victory, not necassaly taking down enemy capitals) in the situations that unwind during the game.

Usually in these LL vs dice flame wars I get the impression that players who bashes LL has never tried LL, or played it only once. I played hundreds of dice games, and hundreds of LL games.
If I played the boardgame f2f I would probably not bother with LL, this is a lot of extra work, but it’s a practical issue, not a mathematical one.

There IS friction in LL. There IS the fog of war in LL. There is great uncertainty. In 99% of my games I don’t feel safe until I see the opponent type" I concede" or “gg”.
Then I feel safe, until the next game starts.  :wink:

I don’t feel any safer in A&A regardless of LL or dice, than I felt in chess games. If some of you feel safe in chess games, then why are you not grandmasters?
When I played I few games against my self to learn more about the first few rnds, I learned that each and every step beyond the very first rnd cannot be simulated, calculated, or foreseen in any way. Every single game (LL or dice) is very different.
We can calculate only the first rnd battles in LL or dice, for Germany b/c no one attacks Germany before the first rnd in 41. Usually also for Japan. In 42 Russia can do the same vs Germany, and Japan can do this in 42. All other issues changes from game to game, and is very different in each and every game.

There is no one who can calculate moves beyond the first rnd, not Hydra the chess computer, nor or an upgraded Deep Blue for A&A. I think any machine will lose to a human in A&A. I have yet to hear a sound argument against LL. It has nothing to do with probability, b/c you have to have the brain to calculate the “probability” which no one yet has accomplished in any A&A game.

Kasparov couldn’t predict/calculate every possible combination 9 moves ahead, but he was very good against the most powerful machines, although he lost that famous match, man vs machine.
LL does not curtail probability, LL reduces randomness, plain and simple.

If every one of us played at least 50 games each year, and every one of them was recorded like a ladder or a league system, then the luck would even out in the long run. LL or dice wouldn’t matter.

I agree with Bugoo, the arguments against LL is just as stupid as if I claimed that Sopranos was very high quality, and that specific reason was why I liked that TV-show. As if this is not the case with every movie or tv-show? We like it cause we like it, and those movies we like, we think that those are better quality than other movies.
You like randomness, honestly, I don’t have a problem with this, why do ADS proponents have a problem with those of us who prefer dice rolls close to average?

@Subotai:

You like randomness, honestly, I don’t have a problem with this, why do ADS proponents have a problem with those of us who prefer dice rolls close to average?

Because LL leads to secure rolls, a thing A&A should never have (I hate zero defense trannies for that reason). It changes all the game dinamic, specially the trades, who are another world from normal A&A because you can send only the exactly needed amount of guys without any chance of failing in small trades. Mayor battles are also damaged (a bit lesser), and the game is converted to a pure exercice of maths. I see LL as a sort of A&A sudoku

Also, LL needs less skill than normal A&A, because LL lacks the risk management factor that normal A&A has, and LL prevents desviations from “normal” results, leading to a rigid gameplay. The same could apply to AA50 techs, the 1st A&A system where tech changes greatly the game dinamic. In former games, the wiser option was not buy tech dices because high risk of losing valuable IPCs, so I didn’t miss much tech in Revised. But I really miss tech in AA50 if is not allowed because it adds a whole world of new strategies -> needs more skill than no-tech

Resume:

LL -> sudoku or Brain Training (for NDS  :mrgreen: )
Normal A&A -> eeeer… normal A&A

@Funcioneta:

Also, LL needs less skill than normal A&A,

So chess needs less skill than dice games??  :roll:

You really believe what you’re saying?

@Funcioneta:

Because LL leads to secure rolls, a thing A&A should never have (I hate zero defense trannies for that reason). It changes all the game dinamic, specially the trades, who are another world from normal A&A because you can send only the exactly needed amount of guys without any chance of failing in small trades.

Both me and my opponents sometimes loses battles in LL, also when attacking. How often this happens is hard to say exactly, but it’s not uncommon.
Even if less battles are lost when attacking, (LL) this is not the most important issue, it’s about winning the game.

@Subotai:

@Funcioneta:

Also, LL needs less skill than normal A&A,

So chess needs less skill than dice games??  :roll:

You really believe what you’re saying?

Give us a break. Det er 6 forskjellige typer sjakkbrikker med individuelle egenskaper. Så lett at selv et barn kan lære å spille en ettermiddag. Gi dette barnet det 40 siders regelheftet til Anniversary editon og se om barnet lærer dette terningspillet like lett.

Sorry I had to speak norwegian. I used some obscene words I dont want IL to delete.

@Funcioneta:

and the game is converted to a pure exercice of maths. I see LL as a sort of A&A sudoku

So you think chess is an exercise of mathematics? Not for humans.

I will also add that my use of the built-in battlecalculator in TripleA is used as often in my LL games and my dice games. Maybe even more in dice games, b/c of the greater uncertainty, and it’s easier to (head) count units vs units (numbers of units) in LL, if the stacks aren’t very high.

@Subotai:

@Funcioneta:

Also, LL needs less skill than normal A&A,

So chess needs less skill than dice games??  :roll:

You really believe what you’re saying?

Yes, I believe that I’m saying: LL needs less skill than A&A

No, I don’t believe chess needs less skill than dice games (as you are saying that I say, but I didn’t say that)  :-D

You cannot compare chess with A&A because those are different systems

I can compare LL and A&A because they are the same system, but LL uses a house rule to alter the game dinamic, leading to less possible results. And less possible results leads to less skill needed. The same for tech: less possible scenarios, less skill needed

Both chess and A&A is easy if you play against yourself, you always win, and lose.

I played 20 chess games once, to win one game online vs another human.

There’s no point in playing chess or A&A, or any other game if you don’t play against a machine, or human.
For A&A only humans can be competetive, in chess there are programs which are as good as grandmasters.

I’m not talking about the rules, which obviously are simpler for chess than A&A games. What we’re discussing here is when we play A&A, or chess. Is it easy?
If you are very lucky, or you are better than the opponent, then it’s easy.
If it’s easier to win in (AAR/AA50) LL than ADS, why arent you chess grandmasters? There are no dice in chess.

Jeg føler vel at vi kanskje ikke kommer noe videre her. I agree with you, Funcioneta  :-)

@Subotai:

I’m not talking about the rules, which obviously are simpler for chess than A&A games. What we’re discussing here is when we play A&A, or chess. Is it easy?

No, we are discussing about LL and A&A. I’m not talking about chess vs LL or chess vs A&A

Remember, LL compared to A&A. You cannot compare apples (LL) with oranges (chess)

Tech adds complexity to the game, also normal dices. So both require more skill

By the way, thanks Adlertag  :-)

@Subotai:

Both me and my opponents sometimes loses battles in LL, also when attacking. How often this happens is hard to say exactly, but it’s not uncommon.
Even if less battles are lost when attacking, (LL) this is not the most important issue, it’s about winning the game.

No, dude. If I want take and hold a territory with 2 defending inf, I only need 3 inf, 2 fig in LL. No hope of lose. If I want to do that in A&A, the same amount will be probably good, but there is a non-marginal chance of not taking the territory or even of clearing it, so I could want send 1 more inf or art if I really want that territory. One additional unit that could be used in another place -> one additional choice to do -> more skill required

Another example: soviets have 3 inf in a territory, but I only want strafe it. So I’ll send 1 inf, 4 figs and I’ll be totally sure of not losing figs in LL. I would never try that in A&A

And there are infinite examples like that, also and specially in defense, and more important, in naval battles

@Funcioneta:

Yes, I believe that I’m saying: LL needs less skill than A&A

No, I don’t believe chess needs less skill than dice games (as you are saying that I say, but I didn’t say that)  :-D

You cannot compare chess with A&A because those are different systems

I just did  :-P

I can’t see how the battle systems are much different, other than the dice is not removed in LL, but reduced.
One important reason for this is that there are more units in A&A, and there are different attack and defense points for eact unit, in chess all units have one attack point and one defense point. But the battle system is not far from chess in LL. The most important reason why someone came up with a LL system in A&A was to reduce the randomness, and by doing this making it a closer to chess.
In LL the way of resolving battles is closer to chess than the ADS system. Also, some battles are 6 attack points vs 6 defence points, but usually a die is rolled in every LL battle

I can compare LL and A&A because they are the same system, but LL uses a house rule to alter the game dinamic, leading to less possible results. And less possible results leads to less skill needed. The same for tech: less possible scenarios, less skill needed

“less possible results”. That is also in chess, chess is a game where there is very little possible results.
You said that “less possible results leads to less skill needed”.
How can you not understand what you are saying??

Unless I misunderstood your statement on LL, you think that LL have a high degree of randomness so that LL cannot be compared to chess? Or you think that players can influence dice rolls, not the dice gods?

@Funcioneta:

No, dude. If I want take and hold a territory with 2 defending inf, I only need 3 inf, 2 fig in LL. No hope of lose. If I want to do that in A&A, the same amount will be probably good, but there is a non-marginal chance of not taking the territory or even of clearing it, so I could want send 1 more inf or art if I really want that territory. One additional unit that could be used in another place -> one additional choice to do -> more skill required

Then you have not played any LL games, or you are a perfect player? I do mistakes, I sometimes lose attacking battles in LL, and sometimes my opponents do this also.

Check out this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_-_Kasparov,_1997,_Game_6

“A strange blunder by Kasparov, one of the most theoretically knowledgeable players in chess history.”

This is what Kasparov did, in a game where there is no external randomness.

You think A&A LL players plays more “perfect” in A&A LL games than Kasparov plays chess?  :roll:

When claiming nothing is left to chance in LL you confuse theory with reality.

@Subotai:

“less possible results”. That is also in chess, chess is a game where there is very little possible results.

You continue saying stuff about chess, and chess is a different thing of LL or A&A. I’m not saying that chess requires less skill than A&A or LL, I’m saying LL needs less skill than A&A

I know the Kasparov stuff, I was a regular chess player a couple of years ago.

@Subotai:

Unless I misunderstood your statement on LL, you think that LL have a high degree of randomness so that LL cannot be compared to chess?

The battle system is not the same. It’s not even similar. In chess, you have one to one, one round battles where attacker always win. In LL, you have multi-unit multi-round battles where result must be decided by one dice and the attacker can lose or even retreat

It’s not only the randomness, it’s the whole game, and other game dinamics that makes chess a totally different thing from LL or A&A

You cannot compare chess and LL, even if LL was created wishing a more chess style of game for A&A