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

@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

Here’s an Example of the possible results of a LL battle:

6 inf, 7 arm vs. 9 inf, 1 arm.
27 pip vs. 21.

Result 1 - Attack hits round up defender misses each rd
Att takes with 1 inf, 7 arm

Result 2 - Attack misses rd up, defender hits each rd
Att takes with 5 arm

Result 3 - Both always hit on rd ups
Att takes with 6 arm

Result 4 - both always miss on rd ups
Att takes with 1 inf, 7 arm.

So for a medium sized battle you can still end up with a pretty significant difference such that all of a sudden your 5 arm are vulnerable to a counter, whereas 1 inf and 7 arm may not.

Essentially you can come out with a +/- of 1 unit per side for each rd of battle given the rounding effect in LL.  So you still get varience just not as much.  For example if you have a large scale battle that will go for 5 rds you can see a 10 unit swing in the battle results which certainly could lead to losing a battle b/c you are think no way will I miss every round up and the defender will hit.

Obviously you won’t outright lose any battles if you assume worst case and are still projected to win, but given the nature of LL it is not enough to win the battle b/c you better be darn sure you can survive the counter, otherwise if you do get a slight roll down then you just left your expensive attacking units vulnerable.

Again per my example above,
1 inf, 7 arm can probably fight off a counter of 6 inf, 4 arm to a draw BUT
6 arm has no shot at defeating a counter of 6 inf, 4 arm and also leaves open the possiblity of a perfect strafe (could even counter with 5 inf, 4 arm).

LL is generally less forgiving on mistakes.

@Subotai:

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

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that are some battles where you have 100% chance of having the result you desire; remember, 100%, not 99,999999 %. And that battles can be very important and happen many times -> trades, strafing, naval battles

If you have, say a battle like this:

Attacker: 8 naval units, 42 attack points
Defender: 7 naval units, 35 attack points

In LL, you know attacker will make 7 hits without even roll a dice, and defender will do 5 or 6. So, if you want a small strafe (maybe you have more BBs), your best choice is attack, because there is no chance of things going bad

With normal dices, you know that probably the attacker will hit 7 times and defender 5 or 6 but you have no security of even hitting same as defender -> the battle could go bad, or even utterly bad. So, ¿attack or not attack? You must take into account any possible counters, the board situation and other factor. In general, you should make this attack only if you think you are losing or at least have a 50% of wining the whole game, but if I think I’m winning by much, I would not attack because a good roll will not serve much anyway, but a bad roll can make you lose a game you were winning. Reverse, if I’m losing, I would make this attack.

The same if you have less chances. If I’m losing anyway, I’ll attack (unless crappy odds) just in case I get a good roll. But the defending player should take that into account and don’t move his/her fleet to a place where the attacker can have a decent chance (30% maybe?) of winning, because the losing player will probably make the attack, maybe making you lose a game you were winning. In LL, you can move fleets safely in defense if you make the right maths

It’s even worst if you must make multiple attacks (or planning multiple defenses). In LL, maths will say you what’s the best combo, sometimes with zero chance of error, othertimes with marginal error. With normal dices, you have no clue if some or various advantageous battles will fail

And I like chess, by the way  :-)

@DarthMaximus:

LL is generally less forgiving on mistakes.

This is true, but only because there are less chance of making mistakes. Sometimes, knowing the minimal amount of damage in round 1 is more than enough. And you still have a minimal result 100% sure in round 2 after the dice is roll

I’m not talking about money/production or any other issues, which is different in chess and A&A.

I’m talking about a battle system, which imo, makes A&A closer to chess, b/c of less randomness.
I don’t see this as totally different, although chess pieces don’t have attack points like A&A units, but the reason why I compare chess to A&A LL is b/c I like a battle system which is closer to chess.

The battle system in chess is an ideal for me b/c there is no randomness in chess “battles”. There is no luck/randomness in chess like in A&A, that’s why I compare chess to A&A LL, even if I know it is not exactly the same way of resolving combat.
What I would like, but is not possible within the current unit value system in A&A, is a no-luck system.
It is possible to reduce the randomness even further.

A way to do this is when, i.e. a tank attacks an infantry, it rolls @3 and misses. The next rnd of battle, the tank get an automatic hit b/c it missed on the first roll. I call this “lower luck”, or reduced luck.
If 2 infantry attacks a single inf, then a dice will be rolled @2 and if there are no hits in the first 2 rnds of battle then there will be an automatic hit in the third rnd of combat.
This would reduce the randomness even more than the current LL system. It would be even closer to the way of resolving “battles” in chess.
My motivation for my perceptions on LL, ADS and chess, is that imo, although chess is not a prefect game, it has a perfect way of resolving combat, and the one and only reason is b/c of the “no-luck” system of resolving “battles” with attacking and defending units/pieces.

So, you like LL because you don’t want win or lose battles only because of luck. Good for you, it’s a valid position

I like normal dices because it leads to a more complex A&A gameplay than LL. I sacrifice winning or losing a minority of battles or games due to luck because I prefer a more complex A&A gameplay. It’s valid for normal dices/LL and for tech issue

And I’m not saying that all games must have luck to be good. Chess is a pretty good game. One of my favourite games is a german game called Antike (who has no luck, and it’s a very complex game). But, unless Larry changes the game system, Axis and Allies is a more complex game if you play with tech (fixing HB or not is matter of another thread) and with normal dices

@Funcioneta:

And I like chess, by the way  :-)

Strange, b/c you said that A&A LL is all about math, actually, chess is more math-like then A&A LL/ADS.

It is much easier to make a good chess AI, especially if you have very powerful computers, but even the best chess programs can be powerful on a medium prized PC. The math is simpler in chess then A&A.

You like chess, but you don’t like the combat system in chess perhaps? Or you use a dice to decide if a pawn should eliminate the queen?

Actually, I didn’t like chess….I like A&A b/c I get to conquer the world, and I use soldiers, tanks, aircraft, warships. Much funnier than chess.
The problem with all this is that the dice gods may not like my plans for global domination  :|
Somehow, I don’t feel the dice gods should interfere my plans, what is much easier to accept, is the other player making better decisions, and thereby I lose b/c I was being outplayed.
It’s not right to lose games b/c you got cursed by the dice gods. And for reality, the dice gods did not decide the outcome of the real WW2.

@Subotai:

You like chess, but you don’t like the combat system in chess perhaps? Or you use a dice to decide if a pawn should eliminate the queen?

And we arrive finally to the core: I like chess, I like chess battle system, I like A&A, I like A&A normal dices battle system

But I don’t like A&A using a battle system similar to chess -> leads to lex complexity or viceversa -> It could hurt my sanity ¿pawns attacking at 3’s? Come on, why don’t use Spock’s 3D chessboard?  8-)

I have nothing against people who want the randomness with ADS. And I play both dice and LL, but LL is definitely my preference, and most of my games are played with LL.

Fact: both LL and ADS games can be won both by skill and by luck!
Fact: both LL and ADS games will be determined by the better player in the long run, means atleast 51% of all games are won by skill and decisions, not by luck.

The arguments about skill, and uncertainty from some ADS proponents is nothing but rubbish, perhaps even deliberately false accusations. Ask some scientists/researchers if you have any doubts.

I started playing classic many many years ago. We didn’t have any other system than dice, until we had played for several months/years, then we used a system similar to the current LL system b/c wild dice swings which decided the game alone, not the players.

A couple of years ago I started playing AAR in the TripleA lobby, and with dice, although some players used a LL system which I was not familiar with at first. I played dice as the usual way for many months, until some games was decided by wild dice swings, not the players.
This is okay, if the players would accepts the facts. Some of my opponents claimed they “made the right decisions”, it was “strategic insight” which left them with 6 units in Southern Europe/France/Germany etc, when the battlecalc said I should be left with 10 units. But it was not “brilliant tactics” which decided some games, it was the dice gods.
This is different from poker, b/c in poker if you get the money, you’re happy even if the poker gods (aka Lady Luck) gave you the money, even you were outplayed by the other players.

Fact: dice are an external factor which we cannot control! This doesn’t alter the core of the game, usually (more than 50%) the better player wins.  
The difference from LL to ADS is that there’s a greater risk of losing a single game to bad luck in ADS when compared to LL. But this happens also in LL.
In the long run, the better players/teams will win in LL, ADS, chess, soccer, business, poker, politics, war etc. etc.

@Subotai:

I have nothing against people who want the randomness with ADS.

And I continue saying the thing I like about normal dices and tech is more complexity, not randomness

@Subotai:

Fact: both LL and ADS games can be won both by skill and by luck!
Fact: both LL and ADS games will be determined by the better player in the long run, means atleast 51% of all games are won by skill and decisions, not by luck.

Who is saying something different? I don’t, I agree with that. I am talking about complexity. Normal dices have more. I don’t see any argument yours countering that or even talking about that

@Subotai:

The arguments about skill, and uncertainty from some ADS proponents is nothing but rubbish, perhaps even deliberately false accusations. Ask some scientists/researchers if you have any doubts.

Personal attacks, generalizations, zero arguments. I don’t say LL or no tech is rubbish. I say LL or no tech is less complex. Counter that argument or at least try doing it

@Subotai:

Fact: dice are an external factor which we cannot control! This doesn’t alter the core of the game, usually (more than 50%) the better player wins.

Dice is a factor which we cannot control without measuring the risks, a thing that needs skill. It affects the combat system totally, an so the core of the game. LL and no tech allow making choices you normally would not do, both lead to a more rigid and less complex gameplay

@Funcioneta:

And I continue saying the thing I like about normal dices and tech is more complexity, not randomness

Fact: With ADS and tech there is more randomness then in LL. If you don’t believe me, ask a mathematician.

@Funcioneta:

LL and no tech allow making choices you normally would not do, both lead to a more rigid and less complex gameplay

This is also true for chess, meaning, the lack of randomness in chess.