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

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

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