I think what I was trying to do was browse too it, but then again, it was so long ago (Switch and I were on the same side, politically, at the time.)
I use hotmail, probably always will since the entire world knows my hotmail address.
Revised vs 2nd ed
-
I guess my question is why no or low luck. What crybaby came up with that?
-
In short, to prevent “good” players from losing to mediocre players because of dice.
Originally, it was a strat testing method… then it got turned in to game play as a protection against “bad dice” and to insure that games ALWAYS went along pre-planned pathways instead of being more fluid (as you get with LL).
LL is not fool proof in protecting against bad dice (just check my G1 move in my LL Classic game with Avin for proof… the Ukraine battle). But it DOES force the game into pretty predicatable patterns… allowing the person with the most over-developed skill at using a simulator to be superior… because they have pre-tested all the likely battles. ADS creates NEW battles and new variables, and sim players don;t like that.
Go look at some of the discussions by one of our banned board members, Agent Smith/Sexual Harassment Panda/SHP and see what I mean…
-
I guess my question is why no or low luck. What crybaby came up with that?
LOL. Can I quote you on that? Â :lol:
-
@Sankt:
I guess my question is why no or low luck. What crybaby came up with that?
LOL. Can I quote you on that? Â :lol:
you just did…
-
Like ncscswitch stated: no and low luck were a strat testing method originally…
what I’m suggesting: if you want to know what a bid should be for the Axis or the Allies?
then you should playtest - also known as strat testing - with no luck :-Pand since this would be a game of CA&AR (stands for Chess Axis & Allies Revised 8-)) you could play it on you own…
and at the end of some games: you’ll know what bid should be placed, if any…have fun!
(you’ll need it :evil:) -
I would argue that well played axis is almost unbeatable in revised but I’ll agree to disagree on this one.
I’m a little curious what you base your position on? As I mentioned on another thread about what the “standard†bid amount should be, I base mine on the statistics of the TripleA War Club Ladder:
http://tripleawarclub.org/ladder/playedgames.php?startplayed=0&finishplayed=20In brief, the Ladder features a bid of 9 for the Axis. The bid can be used to purchase additional units or banked as the Axis player desires within a couple of restrictions. No more than one unit can be added per territory/SZ, and units can only be placed on territories controlled by that country, or in SZs with other ships of that country.
Matches are played in two game sets, with each player playing once as the Axis and once as the Allies. So the best players can not gravitate to playing one side or the other, like can happen in the tournament on these boards in the Games forum right now. The winner of each game is determined by the player to reach 9 Victory Cities at the end of the USA turn, or by concession.
There are 175 players active right now, from all over the world. This assures a wide variety of skill levels and strategies.
1140 games have been completed to date, which is a fairly large sample size.
Of those games, the Axis is winning 51% of the time. This is almost 50/50, which implies a bid of 9 for the Axis is probably VERY close to perfectly balancing the sides. Perhaps the Axis has a slight edge with a bid of 9, but the extra 1% might be statistically insignificant. Maybe if the bid were lowered to 8, the Allies winning percentage would jump to 55%, which would mean 9 is more balanced. In any case, the stats strongly indicate that a bid of 8 or 9 is the most balanced.
One interesting thing to note is that of the top 10 players by rating, 8 of them have a better winning percentage as the Allies. This might imply that at the highest levels of play, the Axis is overmatched a bit even with a 9 bid.
One caveat; players can play either by Low Luck or Regular Dice, and the statistics for the two are not separated. So if Low Luck favors one side, the statistics might be skewed. But the majority of players seem to play Regular Dice, so I doubt the Low Luck stats are too big an influence.
-
interesting, JamesG…
I’m always interested in some facts and figures…
-
@Sankt:
I guess my question is why no or low luck. What crybaby came up with that?
LOL. Can I quote you on that? Â :lol:
No problem. Put it in your signature line. 8-)
-
I’ll I’m saying is that I don’t have any trouble winning when I play the Axis. In 2nd I did. Thats my point. I think bids are silly, and I think that Low No Luck is for whiners.
-
I’ll I’m saying is that I don’t have any trouble winning when I play the Axis. In 2nd I did. Thats my point. I think bids are silly, and I think that Low No Luck is for whiners.
No, I think it is for people who like chess more than they like A&A® and hope to get something in between!
-
I’ll I’m saying is that I don’t have any trouble winning when I play the Axis. In 2nd I did. Thats my point. I think bids are silly, and I think that Low No Luck is for whiners.
Bids are silly? I guess most people who play the game at a high level or tournamant levels are silly then.
And there isn’t much to whine about in Low Luck. If you lose in low luck, its most likely due to your bad strategy. In real dice, you could lose solely based on a bad set of dice. From what I’ve seen, some real dice players are much bigger whiners than low luck players. No names, but I’ve seen some of the real dice proponents on this board whine like crazy when they got a set of dice only slightly below average.
-
I nearly broke my hand punching a wall after a particularly nasty set of dice cost me Russia in A&AE. Of course, alot of beer was involved. I learned my lesson and I’m much more calm these days…
Anyhow, just backing up your point that throwers can be whiney babies when it comes to bad rolls- I certainly used to be.
-
I mean that only whiners demand to play low luck. I have been known to complain about a bad roll but hey even at the touney level its still just a game. As for bids, well, I think that if your going to play the underdog you should expect a harder time than if you pick the favorite. Nothing is more satisfying than kicking butt as the Axis with no bid.
-
Well, as one of the “whiners”… I did get a 1 in 10,000 string of bad dice that drew a LOT of attention a while back…
Also, I proved in my ONLY Low Luck game that I have ever played (and the only one I will ever play), that you can still get massively dice fracked in LL. Happened on G1… about the worst possible time for it.
-
It is my belief that a good strategy can overcome unfortunate odds. A common rebuttle would be, “any one can get screwed in a single battle, especially a big battle.”
All too true, which is why I try to do everything I can to avoid large battles.
Do not let the game come down to dice, it gives your opponent odds they should not ordinarily have.
In conclusion, this is why I believe good players can overcome unfortunate dice.
Oh, I am also part of the school of thought that believes, “there are such things as bad days”
-
We share the same belief, but still end up trying to avoid different things Octo. You try to avoid large battles, while I try to avoid the small battles for the same reason. I hate sending my bomber out to take 1 or 2 lonely transports. And I hate sending a BB to take a lonely destroyer. In both cases you are favorite with great odds, but if you should fail(and I do more than 50% of the time…) it can cost you the game.
-
I don’t think you will find me engaging in combats like that, unless there are greater implications to the combat.
-
bad rolls even out good ones. it’s part of the game.luck and chance play a part in real conflict. sometimes the dice are hot and sometimes they are cool.
-
thank you flush!
-
i played a game today on the board and lost because of dice. 15 dice a two or less and not one hit! but there where plenty of of “iffy” battles i won because of dice.
Suggested Topics
