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

@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.

Well, if you give me a chess game with randomness who improves chess gameplay giving more complexity without killing the chess game, better. But LL, no tech is less complex than ADS+tech, chess or no chess

@Funcioneta:

I say LL or no tech is less complex. Counter that argument or at least try doing it

Here I choose to make the same premise as James Randi, who thinks that people who claim they have paranormal abilities must prove that they got these abilities, and not the other way around.

You claim that there is less skill needed for LL games than dice games. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Example: chess has no randomness in resolving battle. If a battle system with dice was designed to work within a variant of chess, there would be more complexity? And there would be more skills needed in a such a battle system?
If you can find several mathematicians, chess grand masters, or statisticians to back up your claims that a chess variant with dice is more skill-demanding then ordinary chess, then I will believe that you are correct.

@Funcioneta:

Well, if you give me a chess game with randomness who improves chess gameplay giving more complexity without killing the chess game, better. But LL, no tech is less complex than ADS+tech, chess or no chess

You don’t think that there is more randomness in tech and ADS, and less randomness in LL and no tech?

I thought everybody agreed on this matter, but if we disagree with this statement, then all our discussions have been for nothing, b/c we don’t discuss the same issues  :-)

My last word on this will be….

I like dice, I like playing with dice because they make satisfying clunky noises when they roll and add tension and drama to the game.

Theres nothing in an LL game that compares to that heroic last russian infantry stand lasting 3 rounds against 3 german tanks and defeating them.

LL seems good for competitive or tournament play, but for me, the fun in AA50 comes from moments like that.

To each their own I suppose on this one.

Ok to refute the argument on LL is less complex, um, there about the same.

With dice you do what you do praying the dice don’t take a dump on you, sending in more units than needed is still wasteful because the dice could just take a larger dump on you.  With LL I have to be more aware of strafes, as well as cascading dice failure is a huge issue in LL, something i regularly expose my opponents too.  In LL I have true risk management when i send either a DD and a fig at that sub, or a DD and a bomber.  Or 2 inf and a fig to trade, or 2 inf and a bomber against that 1 inf.  2 inf + 1 bomb vs 2 inf in LL can turn into me loosing both inf, I still have your ‘risk management’ to deal with.

With dice I just hope for the best, I have no true control over what the dice will do.  In LL i have to choose to send the extra units to ensure the result, or not to.  I cannot begin to tell you the number of battles that come down to that AA gun hitting, but they do exist.  Or the time when my DD+fig missed that sub and it hit, then sunk a tranny next turn.

They are different styles, and neither is the ‘correct’ one, how about we all stop arguing over it.  Its like watching a political debate.