@Emperor_Taiki:

Like I said, I play A&A for its WW2 theme, if you dont care for the theme I sorta see how you wouldn’t care for dice. However less randomness does not equate to more strategy. Tic-Tac-Toe and Checkers have no randomness yet only very simple people would call them strategy games.

One example of how dice add strategy to A&A is that when your losing you may need to figure out how to engage in a decisive battle in order to force a decision even though you will likly lose the battle. In a diceless game once your losing you might aswell give up and order pizza.

When your winning a dice game a wise  player is still caustious, they must build up there advantage and not get drawn into battles that they would have better chances of winning in subsequent turns. In a diceless game having the slightest advantage allows players to roll over there opponents with no question of their victory.

I play it for it’s theme too… I don’t really understand why you think that taking out the dice makes it less WWII… Sure, in warfare there are unexpected events such as weather, or crappily trained soldiers… (Tho that’s hardly unexpected) but a good general should be able to account for a lot of that… The best general in the world can’t recover from never rolling a one. I invented this in a fit of frustration after rolling no more than 20 ones in an entire game. There is literally no amount of good strategy that can make up for the dice being that strongly against you. Its just not fun. This way whether you win or not is based entirely on whatever you can pull out of your head, or butt as sometimes happens. lol
And I have turned many games around from the brink of defeat with a few great moves. only to have my opponent do the same, and have to do the same again. I think it makes you think a lot more.

@Keredrex:

@crimsynseraph:

And I would hold that attacking with less but stronger units is just bad strategy, you don’t have anything to protect your stronger units when the many weaker ones start throwing out unreasonable amounts of ones.

Im thinking of those battles around the map where you got 5 inf.  but i can roll in with 3 tanks,  1 bomber … thats 10 vs 13… its less units but if the strategy makes the position valuable then Id do it even if sacrificing a bomber.  the odds are in my favor slightly.

more importantly… your taking out the wonderful possibility of rolling 5 1’s on defense and killing tanks and a bomber.   
when we play we keep a log of the game, especially when we have Miraculous rolls… like destroying a fleet cause all the subs hit with 1’s and your enemy had bad roll’s.

to each his own

Oki, yeah that might be a viable option… tho i would still very seldom attack with just tanks since you lose so much more in terms of ipcs when it gets taken back from you. combined forces all the way.

Also, assuming you have enough points banked and your enemy does not it would be a simple thing to destroy a fleet using only subs.

I don’t know what makes you think that removing randomness takes away strategy…. It just means that you don’t have any more HUGE unexpected losses. You still have NO idea how the other player will spend his points.

And I would hold that attacking with less but stronger units is just bad strategy, you don’t have anything to protect your stronger units when the many weaker ones start throwing out unreasonable amounts of ones.

The great thing about my version is it still keeps all the probability elements. Three destroyers are statistically going to roll a six. It just lets you choose when you get “lucky”. The strategy is not lost at all.

I don’t know, maybe the people I play with are just weird, but we always added up the numbers to see how many we’d probably lose vs take even before this system, so it wasn’t a huge change in how we played.

So the idea is obviously to get rid of the element of chance.
The way I went about doing this is keeping all the values of the units, and you add the total value of all your units in a single engagement, and kill one enemy for every multiple of six that you reach.
Another thing is the point bank. You can choose to bank points or spend them to reach a different multiple of six.
So say the UK has 7 points in its bank, and has 2 tanks and 5 infantry on offense in an engagement. they have a total of 11 points in the battle plus 7 banked, and could potentially kill 3 units. Germany has 1 tank and 7 guys on defense and 9 points in the bank. They could potentially kill 4 units and still have 2 in the bank, or they could save the 17 points from the tank and guys.
Also, you basically treat it as tho you had dice… You can’t kill more enemy units than you have in battle, and you play in rounds. So since the UK could only kill 3 men the first time, and germany could only kill 4, UK on the second round has 2 tanks and 2 infantry with nothing banked, so they can only kill one now, and bank 2, and germany at the start of the second round has 1 tank and 4 guys, so they can kill one guy and bank one point, or bank 7 points.
Another rule is that the attacker has to spend up to at least the next 6 if he can. If he sends a bomber out after a transport, and has 2 in the bank, he has to spend that 2 to kill it in the first round. This prevents dummy assults to get fast points. (Also, since the transport’s combat value is 0 instead of - like an industrial complex I play that you can spend 6 to kill with it. but thats optional)
I haven’t figured out a very good way of integrating the technology charts into my diceless system tho… We play that you spend 30ipcs to get the 6 dice that you’d statistically need to get your 6 rolled, and then you still have to roll for the actual technology itself. Tho I’m starting to experiment with assigning bank values to each tech (heavy bombers would be VERY expensive as opposed to increased factory production for instance)