Low Luck and Normal Dice Roll hybrid

Interesting idea!

I also have a friend who rolls pretty bad in this forum’s dice server and swears the same thing about planning, strategy, etc, etc.  So we play LL by Forum even though I prefer dice and it’s randomness!

Good idea but still I am not sure if you will satisfy both extremes.

Friend A wants LL because he can figure out mathematically how many units he needs to attack, defend and basically plan out the moves.  This is great for figuring out optimal strategies and moves but A can’t figure out his losses if you take greater of LL or dice and still may complain about the dice.

Friend B wants dice because they enjoy the randomness and heck who doesn’t love a good attack or defense roll.  I’ve even got a special 45 second dice routine for my AA shots.  It annoys everyone and it hurts more when it does hit!  Let’s say your attack or defense goes really well and the opponent rolls poorly, B might complain because LL is adding more hits.

All that aside, if you play Face to Face (in person) the logistics of this would slow the game down unless you have a computer handy and can plug the moves in and calculate how many hits, you would still need to roll for the fractional hits.  And then roll again for real dice.  Also LL isn’t fool proof and I have found that it changes how I play versus what I normally do against regular dice (maybe I play really bad and LL is helping me improve my games?).

Additional questions to consider are:

Also how do you handle sub shots?

What about tech?

What about SBR?  We are doing 3 IPC/damage plus 1@1 so it can be 3 or 4 damage.  With this in my AAR game Germany and Japan are SBR’ing Russia to death.  But I can’t do a one two hit in Europe due to infantry stacks.

Hammer out the details in writing with everyone’s feedback in the group before you have arguments in the middle of the game.

I think you are heading into the right direction.

Keep us posted on how things turn out.

I think I asked on a post if there was a written rule or guideline on how to conduct LL games and I only found a few LL games and based our rules on that but we are still running into issues.

Good luck and welcome to the forum!

+1 karma!!!

you could figure LL by unit type (all fighters together so 2=1 hit 3=1hit + 1@3, then all tanks together, etc) that way you get pretty standard payout odds wise but have more total dice thrown per combat round to add a bit more randomness. I also have a friend that complains famously about the dice and I might suggest this. another option is allowing each side to determine the type of rolls they want so the planner can go all low luck and the randomizer can go all dice. this could make for some interesting results but might keep each rolling style satisfied. I think I am going to introduce these ideas next game.

For SBR, to keep everything simple

min of 1 damage, max of 6 damage average is 3.5 damage so base is 3 damage plus d1 or 1@1 so you roll a die and if you get 1 it’s 4 damage if not 3 damage.  Taking a very simiplistic approach.

We try to keep it simple but with LL nothing is simple.

As for the sub shot, if it hits no hit back unless dd present but sometimes you want # of hits rather than guaranteed hits.

3 subs in LL would be 1 sub shot but in dice there is possibility that all 3 might hit, which would be a better result than 1 guaranteed hit depending on the force, so it really depends.

Also it’s not much of an impact in AA50 but in AAR the bb shot has no hit back but in LL you can translate that to a d4 or it can be added in first round of combat.
2 inf, 1 bb shot vs. 1 inf

in LL you can have 1 bb shot at d4 and 1@2 for 2 inf or guaranteed hit since 4+2=6 but defender gets to shoot back, etc, etc.  It’s the special units that have the hardest time being translated in LL.

Good luck!

you could figure LL by unit type (all fighters together so 2=1 hit 3=1hit + 1@3, then all tanks together, etc)

Don’t know if I like this, because unless there are multiple units, there really is no LL coming into play. This might be more feasible if it were done by attack/defense rating so that say attacking fighters and tanks were lumped together as LL. Or you lump together all naval forces, then air force, then ground forces. But i think that this is too much thinking.

Actually, if all units types are the same it would be completely LL, but if you have a mixed force like 4 inf, 2 art 3 armor and two fig you would have (ADS) 2@1, 4@2, 5@3. with the above method you would have 1@2 (inf) 1@2 and one auto hit (inf+art) 1@3 and one auto (armor) and another auto hit for the figs so you would have 3 hits + 2@2 and 1@3

Why don’t you try having your friends roll the dice for each other?  Or putting them into a cup and dumping them out on the floor?  In any matter, good Axis and Allies players will avoid the all-or-nothing-last-ditch-attack that loses the game for them.  Bad dice usually just means a change of strategy for a few turns.  Though I have seen some real corkers out there (try playing germany with a 4 HB SBR run from the US and costing 35 IPCs!)

gnasape pointed this thread out to me so i’ll chip in my 2 cents. I’m the guy he is referring to who gets irked planning out strategies to test but not getting an accurate idea of how those strategies succeed/fail because i can’t roll die to save my life. LL obstacles should be resolved (imho) based simply on probabilities, like gnasape explained about SBR’s.

Of any idea posted thus far, i like “player’s choice” the best. Reason? I don’t get upset when my opponent has a nice roll, in fact, good for him! I DO get upset when it feels like an hour long plan looks retarded because 2BB shots, 2inf, 1art, 2arm, ftr & bmr all fail to hit on offense, and 3inf all hit on defense. Other considerations include “1st round woes.” Meaning (again imho) i believe the starting board is strategically flawed, that it is the MISSION of all countries whose turn is before another country, to TAKE ADVANTAGE of those flaws. This, I believe, is why most 1st turns are so static.

A quick and common example is AAR R1’s attack (or no attack) on UKR. Mathematically, with 2 or less bid units in UKR, Russia is able to at least clear UKR without losing and planes. However, when dice are involved, almost NOONE wants to attack UKR on R1 when there are ANY units bid in UKR. Why? many, many BAD experiences with dice. Then on G1 Germany is again a mathematical favorite to take CAU (when foregoing EGY). However, once again, Germany doesn’t often attack. Why? often the same reason. In the interest of full disclosure, other strong reasons G1 may not attack CAU would include the desire to get rid of the EGY ftr, the desire to completely clear and close off the Mediterranean, and the general desire to play a longer, more conservative game.

All in all, this argument boils down to one question. “Why do you play this game?” If you want to “beat the game” then LL is for you. If you want to have fun, then die are more your cup of tea. When I play FTF, I don’t even CONSIDER playing LL. I’d rather drink a cold pack of beer and have fun! But on here(PBF), since i have a competent opponent, I’d prefer to explore different strategies and be able to draw a conclusion other than “strat A worked cause i had good dice but strat B failed cause i had bad dice.” These conclusions are, of course, meaningless.

Player preference seems a good solution because it satisfies the “gambler’s” need for variance, and the “strategists” need for consistency.

+1 Karma for OP
(i personally prefer the idea of ‘bad dice chips’.  each team gets 3-5 chips at beginning of game and can use them to re-roll any roll they make, but when they run out of chips they run out permanently)

I disagree with the general idea people seem to have of why people like playing dice.  Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy).  I play dice because I believe it involves more strategy.  The problem is that people who think LL is more strategic really should just be playing chess, and have yet to understand the reason why dice is more strategic.
Dice demand from a good general the ability to manage risk.
If I am attacking a territory with LL, I can calculate the exact number of units I will need to take that territory with just one unit left, or to take that territory kill all defenders in the first round, etc.  If I am attacking a territory with Dice, I understand that the battle may not go as planned in the short term, but that in the long term things should even out.  However, the short term matters more, and exponentially effects the long term of that particular battle (ie: bad rolls on the first round of btl hurt more and correlate more highly with battle results than second round rolls, and so on).  I also understand that the level of variation is much larger in small battles than in large battles.  If I am attacking a territory with 2 tanks, and the enemy has 2 infantry, I understand that the level of variation (or standard deviation of the normal curve of battle results) is much larger than if I am attacking with 10 units against 10 units.  This means that, If I have to do 2 attacks during a turn, and I can commit a few extra units to one of those two attacks, but not both, then with Dice I should allocate those units to the battle that involves fewer units (because fewer units means more variation, also known to non-math majors as luck).  This is why, when playing dice, a good commander is more conservative, only attacking when he is sure to win, and making sure that he is sure to win by committing more forces than necessary.  When playing with LL, you will see that a good commander no longer needs to manage the risk of losing, and therefore will attack more territories every turn, attacking with fewer units.  To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky.  To him, it looks like a completely different game.  And it is a completely different game.  LL removes this vital component of risk management from the game.

(however, I too can get pissed off when some really important battle swings more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean, resulting in ‘luck’ either giving or taking away the game from me, which is generally not so fun.  but I do enjoy when my opponents get luckier than me but I still beat them by playing conservatively and being patient. LL generals just need to have more patience, and more tolerance in their strategies for when things go wrong.  LL generals trying to play dice generally make moves that are far to risky, then complain and bitch when they go horribly wrong, even after I try to explain to them that the results of the battle are within two standard deviations, namely because the deviation is so large on such risky moves, and therefore he should try to play better by giving more thought to the consequences of failing to meet all his btl objectives.)

@Veqryn:

+1 Karma for OP
(i personally prefer the idea of ‘bad dice chips’.  each team gets 3-5 chips at beginning of game and can use them to re-roll any roll they make, but when they run out of chips they run out permanently)

I disagree with the general idea people seem to have of why people like playing dice.  Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy).  I play dice because I believe it involves more strategy.  The problem is that people who think LL is more strategic really should just be playing chess, and have yet to understand the reason why dice is more strategic.
Dice demand from a good general the ability to manage risk.
If I am attacking a territory with LL, I can calculate the exact number of units I will need to take that territory with just one unit left, or to take that territory kill all defenders in the first round, etc.  If I am attacking a territory with Dice, I understand that the battle may not go as planned in the short term, but that in the long term things should even out.  However, the short term matters more, and exponentially effects the long term of that particular battle (ie: bad rolls on the first round of btl hurt more and correlate more highly with battle results than second round rolls, and so on).  I also understand that the level of variation is much larger in small battles than in large battles.  If I am attacking a territory with 2 tanks, and the enemy has 2 infantry, I understand that the level of variation (or standard deviation of the normal curve of battle results) is much larger than if I am attacking with 10 units against 10 units.  This means that, If I have to do 2 attacks during a turn, and I can commit a few extra units to one of those two attacks, but not both, then with Dice I should allocate those units to the battle that involves fewer units (because fewer units means more variation, also known to non-math majors as luck).  This is why, when playing dice, a good commander is more conservative, only attacking when he is sure to win, and making sure that he is sure to win by committing more forces than necessary.  When playing with LL, you will see that a good commander no longer needs to manage the risk of losing, and therefore will attack more territories every turn, attacking with fewer units.  To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky.  To him, it looks like a completely different game.  And it is a completely different game.  LL removes this vital component of risk management from the game.

(however, I too can get pissed off when some really important battle swings more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean, resulting in ‘luck’ either giving or taking away the game from me, which is generally not so fun.  but I do enjoy when my opponents get luckier than me but I still beat them by playing conservatively and being patient. LL generals just need to have more patience, and more tolerance in their strategies for when things go wrong.  LL generals trying to play dice generally make moves that are far to risky, then complain and b**** when they go horribly wrong, even after I try to explain to them that the results of the battle are within two standard deviations, namely because the deviation is so large on such risky moves, and therefore he should try to play better by giving more thought to the consequences of failing to meet all his btl objectives.)

If you’re going to flame my post then don’t bother pussy-footing around with terms like “LL generals”, just use my name. My post was an attempt to weigh the benefits and shortfalls of different battle resolving methods in A&A. Not to prove that LL is more strategic than dice. To that end I thought I was quite clear that I believe LL is better suited to play testing different strategies, and dice are simply more enjoyable.  But if you want to argue that “Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy)” than your argument falls on deaf ears here. To suggest that a general who chooses a maneuver which is other than optimal because it involves a random device is LESS strategically competent than one who chooses other than optimal maneuvers is foolish.

The only reason to pass up any edge in any game which combines skill and chance is that one feels confident that their opponent WILL, in the future, offer a larger edge with less variance. Example: player A is a level 1200 player, player B a level 1400 player. In order for A to win a skill/chance game against B he MUST make moves with more risk, in fact he should seek out game-changing battles with a 45% chance of success. If he doesn’t, he will eventually lose to B’s superior strategy. At the same time B must avoid high variance moves that give A a chance to “get lucky”. However, if both opponents skill levels are the same or similar, both should seek ANY edge lest the game become a draw, since the only edge one will get out of a similarly competent opponent will be a small one.

All I want to figure out, when playing LL, is whether or not a particular opening move is +EV(expected value) or -EV. I therefore don’t want dice “interfering” with my “experiment”. Once you have determined if that a move is +EV, it remains +EV even when utilizing dice. IMHO that’s is the most scientific way one can use to determine what a “good opening strategy” generally consists of.

To OP, bad dice chips aren’t a bad idea either. Perhaps an evolution of that idea would be to “sell” bad dice chips for 5ipc(or whatever u think/play test is fair) apiece. Just a thought i had …

I still prefer player choice. Don’t much care for “battle by battle” player choice though. I would think there would be too much “angle shooting” in that scenario. And again I believe that the point of the game is enjoyment. Therefore “player choice” satisfies both player’s needs.

@crispyHaole:

@Veqryn:

+1 Karma for OP
(i personally prefer the idea of ‘bad dice chips’.  each team gets 3-5 chips at beginning of game and can use them to re-roll any roll they make, but when they run out of chips they run out permanently)

I disagree with the general idea people seem to have of why people like playing dice.  Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy).  I play dice because I believe it involves more strategy.  The problem is that people who think LL is more strategic really should just be playing chess, and have yet to understand the reason why dice is more strategic.
Dice demand from a good general the ability to manage risk.
If I am attacking a territory with LL, I can calculate the exact number of units I will need to take that territory with just one unit left, or to take that territory kill all defenders in the first round, etc.  If I am attacking a territory with Dice, I understand that the battle may not go as planned in the short term, but that in the long term things should even out.  However, the short term matters more, and exponentially effects the long term of that particular battle (ie: bad rolls on the first round of btl hurt more and correlate more highly with battle results than second round rolls, and so on).  I also understand that the level of variation is much larger in small battles than in large battles.  If I am attacking a territory with 2 tanks, and the enemy has 2 infantry, I understand that the level of variation (or standard deviation of the normal curve of battle results) is much larger than if I am attacking with 10 units against 10 units.  This means that, If I have to do 2 attacks during a turn, and I can commit a few extra units to one of those two attacks, but not both, then with Dice I should allocate those units to the battle that involves fewer units (because fewer units means more variation, also known to non-math majors as luck).  This is why, when playing dice, a good commander is more conservative, only attacking when he is sure to win, and making sure that he is sure to win by committing more forces than necessary.  When playing with LL, you will see that a good commander no longer needs to manage the risk of losing, and therefore will attack more territories every turn, attacking with fewer units.  To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky.  To him, it looks like a completely different game.  And it is a completely different game.  LL removes this vital component of risk management from the game.

(however, I too can get pissed off when some really important battle swings more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean, resulting in ‘luck’ either giving or taking away the game from me, which is generally not so fun.  but I do enjoy when my opponents get luckier than me but I still beat them by playing conservatively and being patient. LL generals just need to have more patience, and more tolerance in their strategies for when things go wrong.  LL generals trying to play dice generally make moves that are far to risky, then complain and b**** when they go horribly wrong, even after I try to explain to them that the results of the battle are within two standard deviations, namely because the deviation is so large on such risky moves, and therefore he should try to play better by giving more thought to the consequences of failing to meet all his btl objectives.)

If you’re going to flame my post then don’t bother pussy-footing around with terms like “LL generals”, just use my name. My post was an attempt to weigh the benefits and shortfalls of different battle resolving methods in A&A. Not to prove that LL is more strategic than dice. To that end I thought I was quite clear that I believe LL is better suited to play testing different strategies, and dice are simply more enjoyable.  But if you want to argue that “Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy)” than your argument falls on deaf ears here. To suggest that a general who chooses a maneuver which is other than optimal because it involves a random device is LESS strategically competent than one who chooses other than optimal maneuvers is foolish.

The only reason to pass up any edge in any game which combines skill and chance is that one feels confident that their opponent WILL, in the future, offer a larger edge with less variance. Example: player A is a level 1200 player, player B a level 1400 player. In order for A to win a skill/chance game against B he MUST make moves with more risk, in fact he should seek out game-changing battles with a 45% chance of success. If he doesn’t, he will eventually lose to B’s superior strategy. At the same time B must avoid high variance moves that give A a chance to “get lucky”. However, if both opponents skill levels are the same or similar, both should seek ANY edge lest the game become a draw, since the only edge one will get out of a similarly competent opponent will be a small one.

All I want to figure out, when playing LL, is whether or not a particular opening move is +EV(expected value) or -EV. I therefore don’t want dice “interfering” with my “experiment”. Once you have determined if that a move is +EV, it remains +EV even when utilizing dice. IMHO that’s is the most scientific way one can use to determine what a “good opening strategy” generally consists of.

To OP, bad dice chips aren’t a bad idea either. Perhaps an evolution of that idea would be to “sell” bad dice chips for 5ipc(or whatever u think/play test is fair) apiece. Just a thought i had …

I still prefer player choice. Don’t much care for “battle by battle” player choice though. I would think there would be too much “angle shooting” in that scenario. And again I believe that the point of the game is enjoyment. Therefore “player choice” satisfies both player’s needs.

First off, I am not flaming you, as I posted this from school and quite honestly only read the first 4 posts before I posted.  The idea that dice is for people who like luck, and that LL is for people who want more strategy, is one that is batted around the forum for quite some time, and I have been opposed to it for quite some time.  You can see that here and here.
I also would disagree with your premise that a battle in LL that gives +Expected value remains unchanged when switching to Dice.  If a battle has a 51% chance of giving +EV with dice, and 49% chance of -EV, than under LL it moves closer to 90% +EV and 10% -EV. 
LL completely changes the game, allowing countries like Germany, Russia, and Japan to attack more territories than they would normally attack, with less risk and fewer units.  Its not about luck, its about 2 completely different strategies that are enacted when using LL vs Dice.  If people played the EXACT same way when using LL as they do when they use DICE, then I would be ok with it since it does not change the game.  But when people use LL, they are playing completely different battles, with different forces, with different results (and these results ARE different than the median/mean results of dice rolls, which is one HUGE reason I am opposed to LL).

I think we are in fact agreeing here, where it seems we are not. When you say that a +2% (51to49)edge in LL translates into a -80%(90to10) edge in dice, what I take that to mean is that you have or are confident you can find a better spot in the future to “put the money in”. This is exactly what I am saying happens when one general is more skilled than another. EV is a LONG TERM measure, meaning that if this particular event could be played out infinitely, where do the numbers fall. It is not a short-term measuring device.

So many OTHER things come into play in skill/chance games that this is but one aspect that I’m saying should have SOME bearing on your decision making. I’m also saying that this aspect is STATIC for any given bid. In other words this should be one’s “basic strategy”, or foundation of one’s play.

Other aspects of play include(like you are saying) the variance factor, which is a decision to fight or not fight a certain battle based on it’s possible good/bad results, and how those results affect for ill or good, your OVERALL goals. Yet another aspect is your opponents general method of play…what you think HE/SHE will do when presented with the options you give him/her. I know a player who is ultra conservative. I know another who just can’t stand to play a game for more than 7-8 rounds. I play against them differently. To the conservative guy I don’t need to bid more than 1 unit in UKR to dissuade him from attacking it in AAR R1. The other guy, I tend to wait him out and let him “take his shot” at round 7 or so. Heck I’ll even give him a key-looking battle as bait so he goes ahead and makes the move.

I’ll give you that “risk-management” is part of a good generals game plan. I’m favoring LL atm because I’m exploring different openings/bids in AAR and can’t say for sure if one is better than the other without there being something in place to assure me that the results I’m getting are actually based on the opening, not the die rolls. I don’t know how to be more clear on this point. You ever play or even watch on TV that texas hold’em game? When u start with AA u are a 4 to 1(80% to 20%) favorite against 1 other hand. Suppose player A plays AA against player B, who plays 72. To be clear about the numbers, for every 5 times played, A wins 4 times(4/5) and B wins once(1/5). They play 5 times and all 5 times player B wins. This happens 1 time in 3125 trials, therefore out of 3125 ppl who play this scenario, 1 guy may draw the conclusion that he should fold AA always, and one guy may draw the conclusion that he should play 72 always. Is this picture becoming more clear yet? This is obviously a poorly drawn conclusion of basic strategy based on variance. That’s a most extreme example, but showing that to be correct should allow you to understand that when edges are smaller, the fact remains that there is a clear mathematical “basic strategy” that you should follow UNLESS some other aspect of the game(variance/opponent tendencies) STRONGLY favors another path to victory.

How can anyone evaluate the long-term effect of a particular 1st turn move or purchase without letting “luck” trick them into drawing the wrong conclusion?

have you tried using the BattleCalculator in TripleA?  you can put in any two sets of units, sea battle or land battle, and even including shore bombardments and technology, and then you can tell it to run a simulation of 20,000. battles.  It will automatically take as casualties the lowest IPC value units first.  At the end of the 20000 simulated battles, it will spit out the chance of side 1 to win, side 2 to win, draw (both end up with zero units), and then it will also tell you the average number of units the attacker has left, and the average the defender has left.  (it also makes you identify which is attacker, which is defender, because that matters for a lot of units).

nope. I use aaSIM. it works well enough for my purposes. If u have a link to this other calc I’d be glad to give it a whirl though. Sorry for the excessive banter, I just felt that your original post insinuated that LL generals were crybaby bitches who had noone to blame but themselves for choosing borderline situations in the first place. Peace.

oh and by the way i checked your other posts and perused those threads. For the sake of everyone having fun, I’d like to suggest that IF one chooses to use “re-roll chips” (purchased or given at the start of the game) then I think that they should only be able to use those chips on THEIR bad rolls, not to nerf their opponents good rolls. I’ve never gotten upset because of my opponent’s beautiful die, just my own horrible ones. Reason? I took the time and energy to plan MY battle and so I want my “Scooby snack” as a reward for that effort! However I put no effort whatsoever into planning my opponents attack, he did, so no skin off my back if he rolls well. I think most people feel the same way.

Conclusion: re-roll chips for your rolls only = my vote!

I was working under that assumption, that the chips can be used to Re-Roll any One of Your rolls, and then it is used up.  (you can re-roll your own AA gun rolls [but why would you, they are 1 out of 6, sucky], but you can’t make your opponent re-roll his)
I dislike the idea of buying chips though, because then I could just buy a bunch right as my troops get to moscow to make sure they get through.  By having players start with a set number, (a low number), they will have to ration them out. 
Another idea would be LowLuck chips.  Each team gets 1-2 LL chips.  They can then choose use one up by making an entire battle low luck (must declare before btl starts).  (i would not support more than 2 LL chips per team, and by team I mean the entire side, so the axis get 1-2, the allies get 1-2, which means if Germany uses one chip up, that chip is gone and Japan can’t use it too, which is the same principle as Re-Roll chips, which I would allocate about 3-5 per team)

@Veqryn:

I dislike the idea of buying chips though, because then I could just buy a bunch right as my troops get to moscow to make sure they get through.  By having players start with a set number, (a low number), they will have to ration them out.

This is a very astute observation. Taking this further, one could abuse this by getting to the point in the game where they’ve basically lost due to poor moves and then decide to just “go for broke” buying all “re-roll” chips and picking/setting-up some long-shot, game-changing battle and rolling for it 6-8 separate times to get the desired result. This is just like the old “last ditch tech” hail-mary turn ppl used to see in 2nd ed.

I still think that for what OP is trying to accomplish, buying “re-roll” chips is a decent enough option. Perhaps to combat the aforementioned abuse you could make it a rule that only 1 chip may be used per battle? per country turn? per side turn?

RE: LL chips……hmmmmm I wouldn’t think anyone should be forced to pay IPC for these. Maybe some hybrid system? 2LL chips given to each country at start of game and re-roll chips only for purchase? …starting to get a bit too complex for my taste here, but hey, whatever makes the game more enjoyable for both sides!

RE: AA shots, I still think that any re-roll activities should be limited to dice YOU roll, therefore when u have that big battle and your opponent rolls 3/5 AA hits, well, too bad so sad for you. It was his roll, congratulate him!

@Veqryn:

i would not support more than 2 LL chips per team, and by team I mean the entire side, so the axis get 1-2, the allies get 1-2

This works fine for 1v1, but what about multi-player games?