The siberian insertian, I have only seen this strat in very few games.
I don’t have any higher regards to this strat than the island hopping US strat.
As this forum have a lot of different players from all over the world, and also some posters play in a local
playgroup, and others (like me i.e.) are lobby players, it would suprise me if the best lobby players
are much better players than the best forum players, and vice versa.
But I’m just a poor noob so wat do I know…?
There’s always a regional difference as to preferred strategies.
However, the level between the two playgroups are different.
Which playgrup do you believe has the highest level??
Another difference between the lobby and this forum, is that (my impression) in the forum, most players and/or (?) the
top players, play with reg dice, and sometimes even tech. NA’s and VC is another issue.
But the LL or reg dice is a significant difference in playing style.
The top lobby players uses LL. There a few good players who prefers reg dice, but the major majority of the
best 1vs1 lobby players only plays with LL setting.
Someone who can give me a good answer to the cause of the differences?
A&A is really different with LL and ordinary dice.
A lot of things change. Tactics, logistics and Strategies have to take in account the LL, so you ave to adjust and adapt playing style.
It is not a question of better or not. It is a question fo difference.
I usually play A&A, face2face. Usually we are 3 or 4, but I play also 2 and 5 players matches. We always use ordinary dice and I do not feel the necessity of LL.
I posted my thoughts on LL more than a year ago here (before Agent Smith removed all of his posts those discussions made more sense than they do reading them now)
I do not wish to re-hash it except to say that players who have solid winning records ADS are, in my opinion, better gamers than those who have winning records only in LL. A winning record ADS means that the gamer is better able to react and adjust as the game progresses.
But there’s just not much you can really do to react to a really bad battle, except hope the other player makes a mistake. That’s not entirely appealing, either.
It depends on how bad the battle went. And also on how much one is expecting from that battle.
If the future of one strategy is related to the outcome of a single battle, that is not fought with overwhelming forces… it is a planning problem not a dice problem, I suppose!
IMHO to have success in A&A you must have a good plan, which objective is not strictly bound to the result of a single battle. But it is needed also to have a reserve plan.
A&A with LL loses a lot of the variety that random results give. In the games I play winner is/are those that react better to the problem emerging from the board and have several options to select basing on battle results.
It have always considered the “uncertainity” of dices an added difficult factor, a source of variety, and an emotional gamble element.
LL have less uncertainity, less variety and less gambling.
i wont go into a debat who is the better players LL ore dice, i realy dont care and it is a stupid debate, because i dont think that anyone can prove it.
LL is as much about luck as dice, it is just the outcome there is diffrent.
If 12 tanks atack 12 tanks, it is about 42% chance who wins and 16% of a draw.
When u play a dice game the outcome of the battle can be from, that the winner have 1 tank left to have 12 tank left. In LL u are sure that then winner dosent have more that 2 tanks left, there is still luck on who wins the battle, but how many units that are left, are the diffrent on LL ore dice. What plp like is up to them. And i dont think that one ore the other have better players. It is not that hard to ajust to.
another diffrent is that u can strafe better in LL, that is 1 of the thinks i like about it.
i dont think LL have less gambling. Because u have limitied the outcome so u dont lose all 12 tanks and your enamy loses 0, u can better take the gamble. The gamble is not as big as in dice, but il will be more willing to take it in LL. So for my point of wiew i gamble more when i play LL.
to decide who is a better player, LL players ore dice player. Is like to decide who woud win a fight, a shark ore a lion
i wont go into a debat who is the better players LL ore dice, i realy dont care and it is a stupid debate, because i dont think that anyone can prove it.
agree with you here…. this would be a good topic for another thread.
LL is as much about luck as dice, it is just the outcome there is diffrent.
ummm… I beg to differ. This is why it’s called Low Luck, the amount of luck is LOWER
If 12 tanks atack 12 tanks, it is about 42% chance who wins and 16% of a draw.
if you were to choose a multiple of 2, everyone dies, for example, 8 tanks on 8 tanks.
total death on both sides… where’s the luck there?
… there is still luck on who wins the battle,…
with your contrived example, that is true.
I can create one in which ADS shows a 12% win chance for the defender,
but in LL, there is NO CHANCE the attacker can lose:
6 tanks on 3 inf, 2 tanks.
Rd1: A:3 hits, D: 2 hits (4 tanks on 2 tanks)
Rd2: A:2 hits, D: 1 hit (3 tanks remain)
another diffrent is that u can strafe better in LL, that is 1 of the thinks i like about it.
This is what ‘ruins’ low luck IMHO. This especially early favors the axis since they start with more units.
it definitely changes the dynamics of the game in eastern europe
i dont think LL have less gambling. Because u have limitied the outcome so u dont lose all 12 tanks and your enamy loses 0, u can better take the gamble.
perhaps we’re talking about a different LL system. If we are not, then I can not see how any of this statement can be true. Look at my prevous example. Where is there ANY gamble for the attacker there?
Attacker knows the exact outcome of that battle 3 tanks. Yes, there is limited outcome…ONE
i wont go into a debat who is the better players LL ore dice, i realy dont care and it is a stupid debate, because i dont think that anyone can prove it.
LL is as much about luck as dice, it is just the outcome there is diffrent.
If 12 tanks atack 12 tanks, it is about 42% chance who wins and 16% of a draw.
When u play a dice game the outcome of the battle can be from, that the winner have 1 tank left to have 12 tank left. In LL u are sure that then winner dosent have more that 2 tanks left, there is still luck on who wins the battle, but how many units that are left, are the diffrent on LL ore dice. What plp like is up to them. And i dont think that one ore the other have better players. It is not that hard to ajust to.
another diffrent is that u can strafe better in LL, that is 1 of the thinks i like about it.
i dont think LL have less gambling. Because u have limitied the outcome so u dont lose all 12 tanks and your enamy loses 0, u can better take the gamble. The gamble is not as big as in dice, but il will be more willing to take it in LL. So for my point of wiew i gamble more when i play LL.
to decide who is a better player, LL players ore dice player. Is like to decide who woud win a fight, a shark ore a lion
I do not think is stupid to debate. Every exchange of opinions and ideas is useful, for me. Otherwise every discussion on the forum is useless. Instead discussion allows knowledge sharing. It is one of the principle of Internet.
Said that it is not a question of who is the better player, I was describing what I see as differences between the two systems.
There are differences. Ordinary luck is more challenging for planning and for adptively react to unexpected circumstances or negative battles outcome.
LL stresses more the optimal resource allocation between the possible battles, and also in defining the battles to be fought. Moreover, careful assessment of opponent available units allows for “more precisely” units allocation, to offense and to defense.
the diffrent in luck between LL ore dice, is there are more outcomes in dice, but there is still Luck in LL. who wins the battle.
ofc there is the battle u are sure to win, and thats a big diffrents, but whith the exampel u have given anout 6 tanks atackning 3 inf an 2tanks, u will alse be sure to take loses that, that is not sure when u play dice. That is right ther isent a gamble there, but my point it that i am willing to take more gambels when i now that i at least, is sure to take some units from the other player. How this works on other people i do not now.
The 12 tanks vs 12 tanks is less a gamble in LL, but i will be more likly to take the gamble in LL. So if i playet dice ther woud be no gamble, but in LL there woud.
8 tanks vs 8 tanks wont is not total deat.
1 round 4 kills to each side
2 round 2 kills to each side
3 round 1 kill to each side
4 round 1 tank vs 1tank
That is more than 1 outcome there are 3. In dice there will be many more, and thats the diffrents.
But lucky, we are free to play what we want, no one is forcet to play LL ore dice. And im not saying that LL is better than dice, i just like it better. And im just trying to make some points about that there is luck in LL. And many games will be determent of luck.
so feel free to play what u want, i just dont like people bash either LL ore dice, and say the game is meant to be played like one of the other. Just because they dont like it.
Hey i even some times take a game whith dice. I just dont have so much fun as when i play LL. And we all now it is all about the fun. But if someone will pay me to play dice il do it anyday :wink:
Romulus
i will debate almost any thing, but not on who have the better players overall, it is just a waste of time. People will never agree, and i have herad that debate so many times.
we can debate in a context that im all up for. Like in the lobby the top players play LL, and on this forum the top players play dice(im not sure im right on the last one, i dont play on this forum.)
but how woud u debate who is the best players of the 2 sides. The only way you can finde out, is to play each other.
If u want to finde out stop the takning and play some games.
I realy dont care who is the best, i just play to have fun. And that is one of the reasons i think it is a waste of time and a stupid debate, at least to me. Others can do as they like. :-)
On a side note can anyone tell me what that karma stuf do and how it works.
I perfectly agree with you Enskive.
In fact I am not asking who is the better.
I am trying to discuss the differences between the two systems. I even think that the two systems requires really different skills.
And a comparison may not be done. Neither a games between two player is possible: one of the two have to change system and so doing he is at disadvantage.
Players that DON’T play Low Luck are better. :-D
Go home team, go!
(the above is merely the opinion of the author, of course)
(or is it? . . . dun dun dun)
A&A is really different with LL and ordinary dice.
A lot of things change. Tactics, logistics and Strategies have to take in account the LL, so you ave to adjust and adapt playing style.It is not a question of better or not. It is a question fo difference.
The issue about LL specifically belongs in specific thread but I do not agree that strats have anything to do with
LL or reg dice.
If someone plays with techs, NA’s or VC regularly then imo this is an imortant difference, i.e. in some competitions
they play with a set amount of time and VC’s that means completely different gameplay than the usual domination rules
most ppl use both in the lobby and in this forum (I guess).
KJF strat or opening moves are not very different between LL and reg dice.
The ukr attack R1 is a standard by most players, although u can use 2 tanks and everything else that can reach, this is usually enough with LL, not so obvious with reg dice, but this is a minor issue imo.
A KJF will not work better or worse with LL or reg dice. Same as the US shuck-shuck from WCA to Afr.
As already mentioned, strafing is a completely different aspect with LL, but general strats are not.
I can’t see that logistics, which is one of the most crucial elements for all players, have anything to do with either LL or reg dice settings.
Ok, Lucifer, I have not explained well my thought. Of Course high level strategy do not changes. Of course is still ste same game.
My opinion, that could be wrong, is: I think that different skill are required.
Strategy difference, IMHO, are related to the factors to consider. There are different events and “signal” to check when planning with LL or ordinary dice.
LL have a major “combination” aspect, in the chess sense, when coming to the tactic and logistic aspects. There are optimal allocation that may be done. Sometime it is useless to send a unit in a battle but it is more useful to employ it in another one.
Ordinary game require a “positional” approach, always in the chess sense, reasoning and planning is more abstract and based also on the experience. Allocation of forces have not an optimized solution.
However, I only play face2face games. We have played also with LL, but we play more with ordinary luck. So these are my personal opinion, and I may be wrong.
The issue about LL specifically belongs in specific thread but I do not agree that strats have anything to do with
LL or reg dice.
Your strategies should change DRASTICALLY depending on whether or not you use LL or regular dice.
In Low Luck, you don’t have to calculate the possible results of bad dice outcomes. With regular dice, you MUST calculate the possible results of bad dice.
With regular dice, you MUST calculate the possible results of bad dice.
This is overexaggerated. You use actually just about the same method of estimation by counting dice punch and unit count. Doesn’t matter in LL or regular dice, you still attack 1 inf with 2 inf 1 fig, etc. If you try to “make up” for bad dice by adding more forces, you will lose in the long run because you’re on average spending more than you need to.
The huge difference is in strafing. With regular dice you have to account for both good and bad dice, because good dice mean you took the territory, and bad dice means you lost more than you strafed. The Allies might be able to push in faster since Germany might be less willing to strafe with regular dice.
@Bean:
With regular dice, you MUST calculate the possible results of bad dice.
This is overexaggerated. You use actually just about the same method of estimation by counting dice punch and unit count. Doesn’t matter in LL or regular dice, you still attack 1 inf with 2 inf 1 fig, etc. If you try to “make up” for bad dice by adding more forces, you will lose in the long run because you’re on average spending more than you need to.
The huge difference is in strafing. With regular dice you have to account for both good and bad dice, because good dice mean you took the territory, and bad dice means you lost more than you strafed. The Allies might be able to push in faster since Germany might be less willing to strafe with regular dice.
So you really see no difference between regular dice and low luck with, say, a R1 invasion of Ukraine using 2 tanks?
(edit) - for those not familiar with this line, it is 3 inf 1 art 1 tank from Caucasus plus 1 tank from Russia plus the 2 Russian fighters, for total attacking force 3 inf 1 art 2 tank 2 fighter, with the remainder of available Russian forces attacking West Russia. Veteran players will probably be familiar with the fact that the Ukr-West Russia attack typically uses THREE tanks rather than TWO - but then, veteran players of that caliber should be familiar with the reasons of why that is the case. For those veteran players that are unfamiliar with the ramifications of Low Luck, as well as the uninitiated, then - (/edit)
Using Frood’s calculator for reference (note that I do my OWN calculations, but for anyone that may doubt my subjectivity) -
Regular dice:
13.69% all attackers die
6.1% 1 Russian fighter survives
11.29% 2 Russian fighters survive
68.92% 2 Russian fighters plus at least 1 Russian tank survive
Low Luck:
11.1% 2 Russian fighters survive
88.9% 2 Russian fighters plus at least 1 Russian tank survive
–
Under regular luck, then, you obtain UNACCEPTABLE losses about 20% of the time (losing a Russian fighter on the attack), and another 11% of the time, you fail to take Ukraine, which allows some rather unpleasant German counterattacks.
Aggregate, about 31% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will “fail” the Russian goal. About 20% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will actually be QUITE bad for Russia (losing 1-2 fighters).
–
Under Low Luck, you NEVER obtain UNACCEPTABLE losses (you CANNOT lose a Russian fighter under the Low Luck attack). About 11% of the time, you fail to take Ukraine, which allows some rather unpleasant German counterattacks.
Aggregate, about 11% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will “fail” the Russian goal. However, the Russian attack on Ukraine can NEVER be QUITE bad for Russia, as Russia’s fighters are never at risk.
–
Conclusion: Games with regular dice and games with low-luck are DRASTICALLY different. It is impossible to conclude otherwise given the evidence.
Under Low Luck, you NEVER obtain UNACCEPTABLE losses (you CANNOT lose a Russian fighter under the Low Luck attack). About 11% of the time, you fail to take Ukraine, which allows some rather unpleasant German counterattacks.
Aggregate, about 11% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will “fail” the Russian goal. However, the Russian attack on Ukraine can NEVER be QUITE bad for Russia, as Russia’s fighters are never at risk.
Good job, you analyzed half of the problem. Now for the other half? That % do you overkill and take with overwhelming units? I do doubt your subjectivity if all you do is look at the bad part of the dice.
All I have to say is that in low luck you never obtain low to no losses, and suddenly your point isn’t as shiny as it looks in all its capitals.
LL and ADS are two completely different games.
LL is an almost pure math game.
ADS is a far more fluid game that (in my opinion) is more contingent on the skill of the players at taking advantage of changes and shifts openings due to good/bad dice than in someone knowing based on over-use of simulators that in 3 turns I can have X, Y, Z forces in this territory.
LL created players like Agent Smith. That in itself is enough to make me forever swear off LL.
