LL v ADS

[Infantry Rocks]

A lot of people seem to be suggesting that the only difference between LL and ADS is just risk tolerance. It’s not. By cutting off unlikely possibilities in a skewed distribution you change the average outcome of the battle.
Consider 3 inf 1 ftr attacking 3 inf.
In ADS the expected value of the battle is a 1.31 IPC loss for the attacker.
In LL the expected value of the battle is a 1.09 IPC gain for the attacker.

An risk neutral attacker whose sole concern is material advantage would choose the second battle but not the first.

[Jennifer]

The main difference, to me, seems to be the ability to pull off risky attacks with better results then one could reasonably expect in ADS.

Imagine you have 6 submarines + 2 battleships, 3 destroyers, 2 transport, Carrier, 4 fighters attacking.

In LL you are guaranteed to get 2 hits with the submarines and five hits with the surface fleet + air powers.

In reality, you might get 4 hits with the submarines, or no hits with the submarines allowing the defender to allocate hits more easily.

Same in land combat.

If a nation has 4 infantry defending, why not send 6 fighters and 2 infantry to attack it?  Odds are you will lose the two infantry in two rounds, but the defender has no chance of surviving.  Cost: 6 for the attacker.  Cost 12 for the defender.  Whereas in ADS there’s a decent shot that the defender gets 2 or 3 hits in round 1 putting at least one of your fighters at risk. (Not to mention there’s more then a decent shot that the attack would get all 4 hits needed in the first round!)

[Lucifer]

IR, you’re probably right, I can’t figure out numbers, other than BC and TUV in TripleA  :-) , so I choose to believe you, or
other people who seems have spent some years in a University  :-)

What I have seen, is that the most crucial elements of the game are strategical ones. This applies both for LL and ADS.
If someone plays against me, I’m axis, and US builds everything in WUS, and allies don’t contest Afr. I think I
will win most games because that allies strat is no good imo.

Same goes for IC in Asia build buy allies. Jap will have them if not Russia helps to hold India and/or Sink.
As for axis, its up to Jap to take Moscow, Germany can’t do it usually.
Buying also have nothing to do with ADS or LL. DD’s are equally useless in ADS as for LL games.
Infantry seems to be the unit that players buy most  :wink:
As for what to buy, how much defense/attack points you get is precisely the same both in ADS and LL.

[Mazer Rackham]

@Infantry:

Consider 3 inf 1 ftr attacking 3 inf.
In ADS the expected value of the battle is a 1.31 IPC loss for the attacker.
In LL the expected value of the battle is a 1.09 IPC gain for the attacker.

An risk neutral attacker whose sole concern is material advantage would choose the second battle but not the first.

Close, but not quite.  You are correct that a fight to the death would be avoided in a standard game, but you’ve missed the difference between average outcome, mode outcome, and an outcome involving a retreat.

The big negative in the average outcome for the normal player comes on the 4th hit - when the ftr dies.  Before that the battle is economically favorable to the attacker under normal rules or low luck.

And because the mode of the fight (most common/calculated/“expected”) is positive, then a standard player would initiate the fight and pull back before the ftr is exposed.  In practical terms, the average player would never see that ftr exposed, so his average outcome would be positive, and the battle result set would have many instances of taking the land with a healthy sprinkling of retreats.

Peace

[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.