@Bunnies:

Under LowLuck, G1 responds with 6 LRA tech dice and a transport buy.

If you are playing with LL, you are trying to minimize randomness, so why would you even have tech in the game?

@Bunnies:

This is why I think Low Luck players require less skill than regular dice players.  Low Luck players can predict battle results with higher accuracy BECAUSE they are playing Low Luck, and so do NOT have to worry about the other results that could happen.

This is a faulty argument because it ignores the additional responsibilities LL places on the player. Because you can predict battles with higher accuracy, you know that each unit you buy, possibly 3 turns before it even gets to the front, will be crucial in a close game. In ADS, you go with a general plan that gives you some flexibility, like buying a mix of infantry and artillery in a certain proportion, maybe adding a few tanks or a plane if you have a surplus, but in LL you can make specific economic plans because the battles are much more predictable. In my LL games, I’ve sometimes found myself fighting over 1 IPC territories because that territory would give me, say 40 or 42 IPCs with Japan in a KJF game, and buying 5 subs or 2 AC + 1 Ftr would stop America from going further. In ADS, America might just charge on and your subs might all miss. Then you’re screwed.

You can say it’s a form of skill to recover from such a bad roll of the dice, but even if that point is conceded, the entire reason you’re in such a predicament isn’t your fault. Your dice were just bad. In LL games, when you get in a tough position, it’s generally because you made a mistake and not because your dice were bad. In LL games, the skill is in not getting in such a position in the first place.

So, yes LL does change the game in significant ways, and probably screws up traditional bids, but if you prefer a more chess-like approach to the game with greater certainty, it is not necessarily a change for the worse. Try telling a chess grandmaster that making him roll dice to determine whether his queen can capture his opponent’s pawn will add skill to the game. He’d obviously laugh. I doubt he would be consoled if you told him he could demonstrate superior skill by making a comeback after he lost his queen trying to take a pawn.

I just re-read the original post and a thought occurred to me. Even if ADS strategies don’t work as well in LL, how does that make the LL system inherently inferior? If the argument is that LL changes the game by removing certain ADS strategies, isn’t it also possible that it could introduce strategies that wouldn’t work (or work as well) in ADS?

The Axis will never take Africa if the Allies want it bad enough. Building a Russian carrier qualifies as wanting it pretty bad in my book. Germany will just go after Russia right off the bat if the UK and US land everything in Africa and don’t bother Europe, and Russia will have nothing to stop them without an air force. They won’t be able to trade without losing an artillery or a tank, and that disadvantage can add up fast, because without the ability to trade or counterattack you are going to lose Caucasus the moment Germany first steps on Western Europe, and then Germany will be laying down Infantry or Artillery on the Caucasus factory followed by tanks from Germany and Russia will fall. Japan won’t even need to help that much.

I get what ADS is, but can’t figure out the meaning of the acronym. Anyone care to explain it?

Jennifer, assuming you go KJF and build a SA complex, how would you deal with a German player adding transports in the Baltic (or in the Med and then stationing in SZ 12) and threatening an invasion of the UK and/or US? How much does this slow down the UK Atlantic navy? I’ve never tried this strategy, but that would be my biggest concern. The US wouldn’t be landing units in Africa if you shoved all American units into the Pacific right off the bat, and a Japanese player that bought all transports on R1 could slow down your Solomon unification if you didn’t bring the Atlantic units too.

Not to mention that fighters prevent the UK/US player from isolating transports.

Nevermind, I figured it out.

When setting up a PBEM, what is the game ID supposed to be?

triplea16186.tsvg

@Cmdr:

Another point, name one game that was won by defense?  Every game I have ever seen required the winner to attack the loser.

Some games have been won because the defender’s defense prevented the attacker from attacking.

@Cmdr:

You could argue it, DM, but I think it is an invalid argument.  A good German defense may hold off Germany from losing for a good Japanese OFFENSE to win the game.  But it’s not the defense that is winning the game for you, it’s the offense of Japan.

A machine doesn’t work if even a single part is broken.

@Cmdr:

If Germany and Japan make no attacks the entire game, they cannot win.

If Germany and Japan make no defenses the entire game, they can win.

Of course, that’s the absolute most extreme views, but it helps to demonstrate my point.  No turtling method in the history of games has ever won the game.  Only offensive strategies have won.  Even the Pawn Defense in Chess requires you to plan some sort of attack route to win the game.

No one is disputing that offensive strategies are necessary to win. But I think switch’s original point was that, in A&A, most successful attacks are possible because of a defensive failure on the part of your opponent. But it is impossible to defend against every attack, hence the “art” in the title of this topic.

As switch said it:

ultimate victory comes down more to what you choose to DEFEND with… and WHERE you choose to defend.  As the defender, economics of combat value are on your side… all you need to do is figure out how to coerce the Attacker into combating you at your points of STRENGTH.

It mostly depends on the game momentum. If I have a borderline shot at taking Russia a few turns before the US and UK start doing some really heavy landings, I’m going to take it. But if I can afford to wait and work for better odds I will.