LL v ADS

[Pervavita]

what are the rules for LL? a link would be great.
thx

[Infantry Rocks]

I chose a fight to the death scenarion because it is easiest to demonstrate. If this battle can be favorable in LL but not ADS then so can others.

Strafing certainly is a choice and here you can’t lose the fighter, at least in round 1. Consider then 3 inf 2 ftr vs 4inf. The chance of fighter loss here makes strafing less of a gain in ADS than in LL. Taking into consideration opportunity cost than mean the risk neutral player might strafe in LL but not ADS.

Having most of a big loss be in the fighter is an example of skew I refer to but not the only case. Another important case comes up when units that retreat are subject to a devastating counterattack. If failure to take out the defenders in my example leaves the fighter exposed then strafing is not an option and so attacking in ADS is bad.

Here I’m talking about a small IPC difference but it need not be and even small differences add up. In ADS games the use of greater force compared to LL can be justified not just on risk aversion but on the fact that ignoring the possibility of bad results in a skewed outcome distribution will lead to a worse result ON AVERAGE.

[Guest]

In LL, the “perfect strafe” is the most significant change in the nature of the game.

A player can PERFECTLY calculate the result of a 1 round strafe, and the worst they face is the variable of any fractional hits (the single die roll) of the defender.  But the attacker can be calculated precisely to get EXACTLY X number of hits.

THAT my friends is a HUGE difference, and completely changes the nature of the game.

[Lucifer]

Strafing is very different in ADS and LL, but still I don’t see this tactic much used. Probably because experienced
LL players avoid moving units in a position which favors the opponent to strafing.

[axis_roll]

@ncscswitch:

In LL, the “perfect strafe” is the most significant change in the nature of the game.

A player can PERFECTLY calculate the result of a 1 round strafe, and the worst they face is the variable of any fractional hits (the single die roll) of the defender.  But the attacker can be calculated precisely to get EXACTLY X number of hits.

THAT my friends is a HUGE difference, and completely changes the nature of the game.

agree 100%

+1 karma to you

[axis_roll]

@Lucifer:

Strafing is very different in ADS and LL, but still I don’t see this tactic much used. Probably because experienced
LL players avoid moving units in a position which favors the opponent to strafing.

Which… in effect, completely changes the nature of the game.

To Switch’s point….

[axis_roll]

I can not say ADS is a better way to play the game

~ NOR ~

Can I say that Low Luck is a better way to play the game.

They are different ways to play the same game.
But they DO result in different strategies and hence, different games.

Just as in life, each has it’s Pros and it’s Cons.

[Lucifer]

LL or ADS will change battles as Switch said, but I still think that other aspects are more important.
I don’t think how players choose battles, and when to combat or when to choose not to attack is more important
than the everlasting discussion about KJF and other strats.
For me a different strat from the usual KGF is if the US use 90% or more
ipc from rnd 1 to rnd 5 against Jap, building and moving from WUS. That is different strat, combat will always change
from game to game and different players use different tactics.
If US goes north instead of Afr this is also a different strat from what I prefer, and many others.
I can’t say for sure that some strats are better, KJF/KGF is not a discussion of the Theory of Gravity.
Imo good or bad strats are more important than battle tactics.
These issues are more important than moving big stacks to the frontline, I call that tactics. And tactics will differ
form ADS to LL, but still I don’t see that this is the most important factor of the game, is ADS or LL more important than
leaving Afr to Germany? Is LL or ADS more important than logistics? If US+UK can’t bring stuff to Russia or other TT’s,
is this more important than if the game is LL or ADS?

[Jennifer]

Hence my original statement from last week, axis_roll, LL is a different game.

Anyway, Inf+Arm in 1 round in ADS has a 58% chance to hit, in LL it has a 67% chance to hit.  That’s a significant change. (BTW, Inf+Art has a 55% chance to hit in ADS and a 67% chance to hit in LL, a MORE significant change.)

[Guest]

But they end up exactly equal in LL by your own stats.

Thus your earlier statement that in LL 1 INF & 1 ART > 1 INF & 1 ARM is wrong.

[Jennifer]

No, they are NOT equal.  Just looking at attack, which is all I am concerned with here.  Defense is a totally different discussion. (Inf+Arm defends just as well as 1 Jet!?!?  )

Inf + Art
*costs 7 IPC
*55% Chance of hit in one round in ADS
*67% Chance of hit in one round in LL

Inf + Arm
*costs 8 IPC

• 58% Chance of hit in one round in ADS
  *67% Chance of hit in one round in LL

It’s pretty clear that the best route is the Inf/Art since it’s cheaper and has the SAME chance to hit in LL!  Why would you waste money on tanks early on (at least for Russia.)  When you can get 3 pairs of Inf/Art + 1 extra infantry in base income, but only 3 pairs of inf/arm for the same cost?

In other words, since they have the same punch, then cost is the determining factor.  Which means the smart player will adjust their purchases, and thus by necessity, the minutia of their tactics because of the change in purchases to the most efficient killing force possible for the money.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

That’s a significant change.

What is most significant, building all navy with G for 2-3 rnds, building all US units in WUS and move west, compared
with if the setting is LL or ADS? Is DD’s not useless in ADS?
If you don’t see what is most significant it surprises me that you can win a single game  :roll:

[Infantry Rocks]

A difference in tactical situation leads to a difference in resource requirements, which can quickly snowball to the point where grand strategies have different effectiveness depending on ADS or LL.
The triple is more likely to succeed in LL.
Allocating just enough to strafe but not sink Pearl becomes possible.
Likewise these differences shut down many options in LL that depend on skewed outcomes being sufficient deterrants.

[Jennifer]

Stop mixing threads in a vain attempt to make yourself look smart, Lucifer.

We’re discussing ONLY low luck, nothing else.  German navy strategy, kill japan first, russian fighter strategy, etc, all have their own threads.  If you want to talk about those, go there.

As for the use of DDs in LL, they are mostly useless.  You only need 1 DD per fleet to cancel out sneak shots, after that, they aren’t a good investment anymore.  Much wiser, if going fleet on fleet, to focus on Submarines and Fighters. (Subs can’t hit enemy air, so you’ll need some fighters to hit enemy aircraft with if you want domination.  I, personally, prefer to kill the surface fleet and retreat, leaving the air to land somewhere else.)

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

Stop mixing threads in a vain attempt to make yourself look smart, Lucifer.

We’re discussing ONLY low luck, nothing else.  German navy strategy, kill japan first, russian fighter strategy, etc, all have their own threads.

I’m not saying that KJF or G navy strat is inferior (in this thread) I’m saying this is
generally more important than if it’s LL or ADS.
Even if the KJF is superior, then this strat is also more important than LL or ADS.
If your UK+US fleets are killed, and they are out of the game for 2 rnds becuase of this, and this “accident” did not
happen because of bad dice, then the tactical (naval warfare) skills are more important than if the game is played with
LL or ADS.
You’re not even trying to refute my arguments.

Some strats are better than other strats, my statement is that strats are more important than if you’re playing LL or ADS.
Tactical skills are also very important, more so than the difference of LL or ADS. 
Not more than a couple of days ago I saw an axis player place 2 units in SE….  and I don’t remember if this was the same game, but the two players did only 1 attack each country for 2-3 rnds.
I guess there are no newbs in this forum.
You have said that a game should last 10 rnds if players are somewhat equal skilled,
this is actually not common in the lobby. Much more than 50% of all games end much sooner.
Another game (in the lobby) the allies player conceded rnd 2, becuase he had no chance to win, believe it or not.
My claim is that several other matters are more important than the LL or ADS settings.  I have still not seen any
arguments that disprove my claims.

[Jennifer]

And I’m saying it’s easier to kill X number of units for Y cost and have the results pre-determined in LL then in ADS and thus, it fails to be a valid testing tool for strategies that will be used in ADS.

If you want to test LL strategies in LL mode, then that’s perfectly valid.  But when you change 55% hit ratios with 67% hit ratios, you cannot call it the same game.  12% is very significant in this game.  If you don’t believe that, just collect 88% of your income for the entire game, let’s see who wins.

[Guest]

Jen, the problem with your cost analysis is pretty simple…
It assumes only 1 round of combat (which in LL is a definite fallacy since the BEST you can hope for is 1 hit.

In round 2, the attack w/ 1 INF, 1 ART is down to a punch of 2 w/ loss of 1 unit
In round 2, the attack w/ 1 INF, 1 ARM still has a punch of 3 w/ loss of 1 unit.

Now take this out of the theoretical compare of a 2 unit battle and add stacks.

With INF screen, the attacker punch remains higher, despite losses, with INF/ARM than it does INF/ART.
AND IN LOW LUCK MAINTAINING PUNCH IS EVEN MORE CRITICAL THAN IN ADS!

(and we do agree that determining battle costs in LL is FAR easier in LL than in ADS… the larger the battle, the easier)

[Jennifer]

I’m only using 1 round as an example.  Since we cannot say for 100% certain what units will be attacking, what units will be defending, what partials will be hits and what partials will be misses, it is irresponsible to assume there will be a round 2 in any given battle.

However, we can safely assume there is a round 1, because without it, there’s no dice for either ADS or LL.

And in one round of battle, it is clearly advantageous for the attacker to use Inf + Art vs Inf + Arm because the cost is less.  (Not to mention the results are hopelessly skewed anyway given the extra 12-15% chance to hit [depends on if Arm or Art is used.])

[trihero]

And in one round of battle, it is clearly advantageous for the attacker to use Inf + Art vs Inf + Arm because the cost is less.  (Not to mention the results are hopelessly skewed anyway given the extra 12-15% chance to hit [depends on if Arm or Art is used.])

I hope you realize this is true in ADS as well as LL….

I don’t know why you’re making such a big fuss about artillery - did you just realize they are cheaper and offer the same punch as arm does? The first time I introduced my friend to this game he immediately understood that 2 rolls at 2 is the same as 1 at 1 + 1 at 3. That holds equally true in ADS as LL, except when you’re fighting 1 unit.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

12% is very significant in this game.  If you don’t believe that, just collect 88% of your income for the entire game, let’s see who wins.

I don’t care much if I buy inf+art or inf+arm, as long as I fill up my trans. I will always buy mostly inf anyway.
If you let me (axis) have Afr, I can buy only inf+art and/or ftrs, and no tanks if you want to.
If you (allies) build everything in WUS and use all against
Jap I can play an entire game and not buy any tanks. What about combining these 2 options?

You have said that it is important to contain Germany first. I certainly agree  :-D
I also think this strat/tactic is equally important regardless of LL or ADS.
Do you disagree with that argument?
You still have not refuted my claims, strats and general playing skill are more important than the LL or ADS option.