You know I almost moved to fayetteville a couple years ago, Youthfull ambitions and sweet black skater helmits…
I’d like to meet you over a board someday switch…
You know I almost moved to fayetteville a couple years ago, Youthfull ambitions and sweet black skater helmits…
I’d like to meet you over a board someday switch…
You tell me when you are coming to NC, and I’ll buy the Newcastle…
Owkey, I registered just to take up the challenge. LL really takes the greatest flaw out of this game.
@ cmdr Jennifer: I assume you mean 7 IPC starting units and 7 IPC income for the axis?
Battlemap is fine, but what’s In House Dicey? I’ve always been playing with DAAK dicey servers…
LL really takes the greatest flaw out of this game.
Her-e-tic!
Her-e-tic!
I must smite thee.
Do your worst :p
But seriously, do you really like it when you attack Egy on G1 and you don’t conquer it? (happens all too often in a no-bidding/normal game) Or you attack 6 inf with 8 inf, 1 coastal BB, 1 rtl and 1 bmr, and you take 4 hits but deal none in the first round of combat? If that’s true faith, then I’m a heretic :)
Do your worst :p
But seriously, do you really like it when you attack Egy on G1 and you don’t conquer it? (happens all too often in a no-bidding/normal game) Or you attack 6 inf with 8 inf, 1 coastal BB, 1 rtl and 1 bmr, and you take 4 hits but deal none in the first round of combat? If that’s true faith, then I’m a heretic :)
Bla bla bla! heretic!
I say that players have to know how to roll with the punches. What, in a real war, you’re never going to have any nasty surprises? You’ve got to learn to DEAL with the bad stuff, that’s how you become a great player. You don’t become a great player by saying “wah! they . . . they threw the ball and it hit me in the nose, and I’m BLEEDING, mommy, I’m BLEEDING!”
If you hit Anglo-Egypt with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber and you fail, well, that’s tough luck, kid. You shoulda used a bid.
REAL men use manly bids and manly, manly dice rolls.
(REAL women use womanly bids and womanly, womanly dice rolls.)
(REAL fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri use fuzzy bids and fuzzy, fuzzy dice rolls.)
If you hit Anglo-Egypt with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber and you fail, well, that’s tough luck, kid. You shoulda used a bid.
The boxed rules don’t come with a bid. And real man don’t need to change the rules. (Which counts me out as a real man, 'cuz I like better rules than the ones out of the box.)
REAL men use manly bids and manly, manly dice rolls.
Or REAL men are wussies for not being able to play without bids.
You’ve got to learn to DEAL with the bad stuff, that’s how you become a great player.
And once you are a great player? What happens next? The game becomes just your random roulette, hoping the dice will favour you and not your opponent, who’s doing only the blatantly obvious, but has every luck doing it.
If you hit Anglo-Egypt with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber and you fail, well, that’s tough luck, kid.
You can also use an extra fighter, and obtain the same result…
What, in a real war, you’re never going to have any nasty surprises?
True. Ever seen a grey and a red soldier throw with dice before deciding who get’s to shoot who? Ever seen an American soldier in Washington and a Japanese pilot in Kyoto at the same time? Ever seen a battleship immediately repairing itself after having been shot aside by some HM Whatshername? It’s a game! It’s supposed to be fun, not realistic. Otherwise the Axis shouldn’t be allowed to win any game, 'cuz in the real war, didn’t they lose?
You don’t become a great player by saying “wah! they . . . they threw the ball and it hit me in the nose, and I’m BLEEDING, mommy, I’m BLEEDING!”
I have to give you credit on this, you managed to type out a statement with which is constructive and completely true.
You become a good player by remembering how the ball got in your face. And next time, you will see the ball coming, and you will be able to avoid it. Unless ofcourse, there’s that magical touch of the dice, allowing your manly opponent to score 5 hits with his AA gun, leaving you only with your bomber against a british fighter armada in Moskva. Sounding familiar? Was your opponent happy he won that way? Were you happy you lost that way? Didn’t you -if only for a single moment- wish the outcome had been more fair? Or did you, with a smile on your face, congratulate your opponent and concluded he had won by his superior strategical planning and his tactical wit?
Ah, whatever, one has to play the game one likes to play…
Hmm, what’s up with the quoting system over here? And sry for the lengthy post, I got dragged away ;)
I fixed your post it was hurting my head… dezrtfish
Hmm, what’s up with the quoting system over here?
You can either hit the “quote” reply button (in upper right corner of message) or when replying you can scroll through the previous messages and hit “insert quote”. You can do this as many times as you like so you can splice the quote up or eliminate all the information that doesn’t correspond to your response.
Hmm, what’s up with the quoting system over here?
You can either hit the “quote” reply button (in upper right corner of message) or when replying you can scroll through the previous messages and hit “insert quote”. You can do this as many times as you like so you can splice the quote up or eliminate all the information that doesn’t correspond to your response.
Aha, got it, tnx for explaining and -@dezrtfish- editing that last post of mine.
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?
LL moves the game closer to chess, so yeah the strats change, but how can you be Patton if you know the outcome of your battles before you fight them? In ADS or… god forbid… a face to face game, you have to be able to recover from bad luck and you have to be able to capitalize on good luck.
@ncscswitch:
You know I almost moved to fayetteville a couple years ago, Youthfull ambitions and sweet black skater helmits…
I’d like to meet you over a board someday switch…
You tell me when you are coming to NC, and I’ll buy the Newcastle…
Your on. Ironic as I use my house key to open my second Newcastle of the night. Odd isn’t it , a Redneck beer-snob.
Owkey, I registered just to take up the challenge. LL really takes the greatest flaw out of this game.
@ cmdr Jennifer: I assume you mean 7 IPC starting units and 7 IPC income for the axis?
Battlemap is fine, but what’s In House Dicey? I’ve always been playing with DAAK dicey servers…
Nope, just 7 IPC for units OR IPC.
And my position is that LL changes that game mechanics to such a degree it is no longer the same game. Kinda like Siamese Chess is not really the same as Chess.
Also, I don’t think that Germany stands a chance in 8 our of 10 games. (The other two being the luck portion of low luck.)
LL moves the game closer to chess, so yeah the strats change, but how can you be Patton if you know the outcome of your battles before you fight them? In ADS or… god forbid… a face to face game, you have to be able to recover from bad luck and you have to be able to capitalize on good luck.
Worse than that. LL allows you to take risks you otherwise would shy away from because you KNOW the worst that can happen to you after one round of battle is you are one units lower then you expected, at best you are one units up and your opponent is one unit down.
With that change alone I win almost every LL game I play. Why? Because I have no problem sending 6 bombers to attack your AA Gun, I’ll only lose one, I’ll never lose 5. Likewise, I know I can hit you with 6 Infantry, 24 tanks and get 13 hits every time. That means if you have 14 units present, I can always retreat 1 or 2 infantry and every last tank I have. In ADS that’s not going to be true necessarily. Maybe you get 7 or 8 hits in ADS? Maybe I screw up and get 14 or 15 hits taking the ground when I didnt want too?
@Cmdr:
Worse than that. LL allows you to take risks you otherwise would shy away from because you KNOW the worst that can happen to you after one round of battle is you are one units lower then you expected, at best you are one units up and your opponent is one unit down.
You would be surprised at how dicey LL games still are. It’s LOW luck, not NO luck. Imagine every round you are one unit up and your opponent is one unit down, the battle lasts for, say, 4 rounds. Take in account the fact that every round depends on all previous rounds, and the battle isn’t as predictable as one might perceive. For the moment, I’m playing an oppo who’s really pissed of by LL dice, so it’s not all that predictable…
But it’s true, one can take more risks (or better: what would be much more risky in ADS), but what’s wrong with that? If you think the battle favors you, why not do it?
@Cmdr:
With that change alone I win almost every LL game I play. Why? Because I have no problem sending 6 bombers to attack your AA Gun, I’ll only lose one, I’ll never lose 5. Likewise, I know I can hit you with 6 Infantry, 24 tanks and get 13 hits every time. That means if you have 14 units present, I can always retreat 1 or 2 infantry and every last tank I have. In ADS that’s not going to be true necessarily. Maybe you get 7 or 8 hits in ADS? Maybe I screw up and get 14 or 15 hits taking the ground when I didnt want too?
Well, in LL your opponent just made a huge mistake placing those inf there. But in Ads, I don’t think if you just wiped 13 inf from the map and you have 24 (!) tanks left, your opponent is going to be able to retaliate. And just grabbing 13 inf almost for free would be the most lucrative battle I ever fought. It’s a bit of an extreme example. I suppose in ADS you just leave the 13 inf be, just because you might get 7 hits and your tanks would be in a bad spot? At what odds would you take a battle then? If it’s at about 90%? Or 99%? The chances of an undeserved loss are still pretty high. And do you think it should be possible to defend yourself from a 24 tank dash with a lousy 13 inf? I believe the game is broken if that’s possible…
But as you say yourself, Allies win all the time, then give Axis a better bid.
Here’s my challenge: Axis get 10 IPC to purchase units or keep for themselves, I play either side, you’re allowed to choose side, DAAK rulings.
@Cmdr:
And my position is that LL changes that game mechanics to such a degree it is no longer the same game. Kinda like Siamese Chess is not really the same as Chess.
Not true, Siamese chess is much more different from normal chess: 2x as much units, 2x bigger board, waay lesser time to think, and pieces are never really lost; they just reappear on the other board. Let’s compare LL to chess and ADS to chess with tossing coins if you capture a piece: by tails you also loose the capturing piece. Noone’s ever gonna capture with his queen again :D
Off-topic: Siamese chess rulezz!! Endless offers, relenting attacks, formidable pawn structures and genial counters which can change the odds in the blink of an eye.
@Cmdr:
Likewise, I know I can hit you with 6 Infantry, 24 tanks and get 13 hits every time. That means if you have 14 units present, I can always retreat 1 or 2 infantry and every last tank I have. In ADS that’s not going to be true necessarily. Maybe you get 7 or 8 hits in ADS? Maybe I screw up and get 14 or 15 hits taking the ground when I didnt want too?
Just to add a bit, Jen you’re right that it isn’t necessarily true that an ADS player will strafe but it is a good bet they WILL. It won’t be as perfect of an attack but leaving 14 units next to a stack of 30 is just a bad play, regardless of ADS or LL. In ADS you attack with 6 inf and 18-20 arm. If you do 18 arm you’ll probably come out with 10 hits to 5 (approx) and you still have room for a roll-up of 3.
Meaning even if 2 of your inf hit, you’d still be safe with 11 hits out of 18 on the arm (61% hit ratio).
The point to look at is the move itself. Putting 14 units in a position like that is a bad idea. Using the LL method it is obvious why it is a bad move, thus the player learns and doesn’t make the move. Now translate that to ADS and is putting 14 units in that position now a good move? No way.
Again, the strafe isn’t as perfect but the potential to tons of damage for only a few inf is still there in ADS and it is still a good move to do the strafe and still a bad move to put 14 units in that position.
I’m not saying LL doesn’t change some things b/c it does, but it isn’t that drastic of a change and I’m one of the players that believes most (if not all) LL strats work in ADS but you can’t say that about ADS to LL.
If your strat fails in LL you might as well never try it ADS, b/c it is clear you’d need some type of major roll-up (luck) to win, which means you’ll lose more game then you will win with that strat.
Now if your strat succeeds in LL it should work in ADS with “avg” or “good” dice, and probably won’t work with bad dice. But if you’re constantly getting bad dice all game it really doesn’t matter your strat, cause you had no shot at winning anyway.
Well lets see
Rolls: 6@1 24@3; Total Hits: 136@1: (5, 5, 1, 2, 4, 5)24@3: (2, 5, 4, 6, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 5, 2, 2, 2, 5, 1, 5, 4, 2, 2, 4)
Rolls: 14@2; Total Hits: 414@2: (5, 1, 2, 5, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 4, 4, 3)
LMAO
If your strat fails in LL you might as well never try it ADS, b/c it is clear you’d need some type of major roll-up (luck) to win, which means you’ll lose more game then you will win with that strat.
Now if your strat succeeds in LL it should work in ADS with “avg” or “good” dice, and probably won’t work with bad dice. But if you’re constantly getting bad dice all game it really doesn’t matter your strat, cause you had no shot at winning anyway.
NOT true.
Strategies that are excellent for Low Luck utterly fail with normal dice, and strategies that are excellent for normal dice utterly fail with Low Luck.
Battles under Low Luck have far more controllable outcomes. Therefore, instead of coming up with, say, a 75% probability of a winning or acceptable outcome as with regular dice, you instead have a 95% probability of a winning or acceptable outcome under Low Luck. This difference in probability is compounded over time, allowing the Low Luck player to carry out multiple battles with high probability of success, whereas the SAME EXACT attacks with regular dice would result in probable failure for at least one of those battles. Thus, the Low Luck player does NOT have to deal with the possible opening in his/her position that bad dice rolls would result in, while the regular dice player DOES have to deal with possible openings.
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.
Illustration?
I’ll go ahead and use the OOB/FAQ G1 LRA Sealion, as it offers the most dramatic and understandable view on the differences between Low Luck and regular dice. (The same holds true to a lesser extent for attacks such as the 3-territory R1 attack which is ridiculous in ADS but feasible for Low Luck - but I digress).
Say R1 does NOT lead with an attack on Ukraine and does not fly fighters to London (which is improbable in the first place if Low Luck is in play, but I digress)
Under LowLuck, G1 responds with 6 LRA tech dice and a transport buy. After the AA gun on London fires, Germany invades 5/6 of the time to sea zone adjacent to W. Europe and London with 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 infantry, and 1 tank fighting against 1 bomber 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank 2 fighter. Germany almost certainly wins with a tank and a bomber, taking the UK for an income of 72+ some. The German Atlantic sub attacks the E. Canada sub with high probability of winning, and the German Med fleet moves west, grabbing Gibraltar.
If the German attack on E. Canada succeeds, UK cannot retake London. US can only invade with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber (landing on Greenland). Germany responds on G2 by retaking London with 3 inf 3 tank 1 bomber (1 transport from Baltic, 1 transport from G1 buy, 1 transport from Med), moves sub to sea zone southwest of sea zone 8, making US2 retake of London impossible. If Russia did NOT fly fighters to London, the ONLY real risky part of this battle is the E. Canada attack, which is fairly favorable.
Now, in a regular dice game, Germany just can’t try all this stuff. The dice break down with 6 LRA tech dice, or with the UK AA gun , or with the invasion of London, or with the E. Canada attack which would allow UK to retake London with high degree of success (allowing a 9 unit stack max with US reinforcements on US1 and Russian reinforcements on R2, as opposed to a 6 unit stack max following a US retake) or with the G2 retake of London. It’s a house of cards that just explodes when you fart on it.
(edit/)
What’s the difference between a 100%, 90%, 66%, 100% independent outcome series for a lock, and a 65%, 85%, 50%, 85% independent outcome series for a lock? Well, under the first, you have 60% lock, under the second, you have 23% lock. THAT is the difference between Low Luck and ADS. Something that’s SMART under Low Luck is RETARDED under ADS. (Note - these are not corresponding to the probabilities of G1 LRA Sealion; I’d compute the values more precisely if I were writing an ARTICLE omgomgomg)
And vice versa.
If you are playing Low Luck instead of ADS, you would be retarded NOT to take advantage of the more controllable outcomes. Logically, you would play VERY DIFFERENTLY under Low Luck than you would with ADS.
So if you don’t do the same thing under ADS that you do under Low Luck, and you don’t do the same thing under Low Luck that you do with ADS, then HOW is it that a strategy system that works under one can be said to work for the other? My answer that it is only possible in a world of crack.
a WORLD. of CRACK.
(/edit)
