No Luck Revised v. 0.1

[Infantry Rocks]

No Luck changes more than you think. What is  with the dice a 51% advantage can be in No Luck a guaranteed win. Setting up battles so you have 4 punch remainders and your opponent has 3 punch remainders will become the most important tactical consideration.

[newpaintbrush]

No.  I do not expect to be able to destroy at least one sub even with rolling.  I realize that there is a 25% probability that I will have simply used the fighters to no effect, and I look for alternative fighter targets.  Only if there are no better targets of opportunity would I attack the subs, and that is because of the very real chance of both fighters missing.

The outcome that happens 100% under your system only happens 50% of the time with average dice rolls.  Can you REALLY say that a clinical trial that selectively ignores 50% of its results is objective, or that the reported results of that clinical trial will not have been changed dramatically?

[Nightmare]

Real life situation modified so that it suits to your game:

Commander: “Ok guys we´ve already been attacking Berlin  5 times to bomb their industry with our 4 Bombers, which was very useful.
But from now on we´ll not attack them at all, because we know that they´ll kill everyone of us.
As I´ve seen the Germans have 4 fleets of 3 Trannys in the waters, let´s attack them. Every Bomber takes one fleet so that we know, whatever happenes that we will sink 12 of their transports without loosing something in that battles, but you can´t fly over enemy AAs, as we all know that the chances are 100% high that you´ll be shot down.”

I don´t think that many guys here playing with luck would consider this strategy, but in your version it is very advantegous.

[Natasin]

The real life situation is funny to be sure.  The low luck rules for airforce works best for SBR at the moment.  This is why it is version 0.1 and not playtested.  Keep in mind that waiting until the last moment to stop using an airforce piece is not as much an advantage as it might seem.  That piece can harass others pieces, but is effectively useless in big attacks.  The simplier alternative is to keep a running total of attacks against AA gun defended countries.  Once the total is equal to 6, 12,18 and so forth then one airforce piece is lost at the beginning of an attack.

For example,

Germany decides to attack Caucasus with 4 planes on rd2, the Germany player writes down 4 next to the aa tally.  On the next turn if two German airforce units attack any country with an AA gun, then Germany must forfeit one unit before battle.  This is a tough idea, and we need a SBR tally along side to make it functional.  How to make it work will require more thinking.

Keep in mind that the point of this variant is to make battles completely predictable.  We already try to predict battles, but the dice cannot be controlled.  I agree that randomness makes for interesting games.  Though, I highly doubt anyone likes to win due to lucky rolls.  Personally, I like to lose because the other person had a better plan, not because the dice gave them the game.

I would like to point out that there will never be a 51% battle under this system, but the point is well taken.  Though, in my opinion, players depend on a punch of 4 or 66% (well 67%) to bring them to victory.  67% is not bad percentage to allow things to go your way.  The difference between a 3 and a 4 is already very important.  This variant expects players to be strategist to the fullest extent.

This bring me to a point about the psychological effect of sending 2 FIGs against any attack.  First, there are 3 different potential results for the attacker: 2 hits, 1 hit and 1 miss, two misses.  The goal is one hit and that has a 75% chance of succeeding, not 50%.  There is only a 25% chance that both FIGs will miss.  I think most players will take those odds.  In fact, 75% is considered good odds for most endevours in Axis and Allies.  I see people talking about the amount of hits they expect to get and this variant simply takes their belief to the end result.

Again, the point of this variant is to ensure that luck will not rule the day.  Thanks for the feedback.  Remember that everyone has the advantages and disadvantages of these rules.

[newpaintbrush]

Say a particular outcome is likely to occur 50% of the time in the first round of combat.

Then say in the second round of combat, there is another outcome that is likely to occur 50% of the time.

Then say in the third round of combat, there is another outcome that is likely to occur 50% of the time.

So overall, you’d have only 1/8 (50% of 50% of 50%) a chance of having that particular outcome, and 7/8 chance of having something else.  Before, I mentioned only a first round trial with 50% of the results ignored.  Now it’s 86.7% of the results that are being ignored.

“Remember that everyone has the advantages and disadvantages of these rules.”

Oh yeah, no question.  It’s the “These rules should make for a dice free game that should not change the game dramatically.” that I question.

[Guest]

It is a radical change, and one that only takes every argument i ahve ever made regarding LL and takes it to the Nth power.

Games are won and lost on those 60/40 battles… the ones where you need the break and go for it.  2 out of 5, you win.  with THESE rolls, you lose the 49.9% battles EVERY TIME.  Every battle a pre-set result.

Screw that.  I’ll burn my board first.

[Jennifer]

And yet, No Luck is a viable method of playing the game.  And, it has the added benefit of negating the need for a bid and changing what happens in a normally pretty static game.

LL is better.  Still some fluctuation.

[squirecam]

@Jennifer:

And yet, No Luck is a viable method of playing the game.  And, it has the added benefit of negating the need for a bid and changing what happens in a normally pretty static game.

LL is better.  Still some fluctuation.

LL is NOT axis and allies. So it could never be “better” as it is not part of the game.

This game requires skill AND luck. If you cannot stand that dice sometimes go against you, play chess. Or solitare.

In fact, an important part of the skill is taking the “luck” into account and playing accordingly.

The side with more troops DOES NOT ALWAYS WIN. Just ask Israel.

Squirecam

[Jennifer]

@squirecam:

@Jennifer:

And yet, No Luck is a viable method of playing the game.  And, it has the added benefit of negating the need for a bid and changing what happens in a normally pretty static game.

LL is better.  Still some fluctuation.

LL is NOT axis and allies. So it could never be “better” as it is not part of the game.

This game requires skill AND luck. If you cannot stand that dice sometimes go against you, play chess. Or solitare.

In fact, an important part of the skill is taking the “luck” into account and playing accordingly.

The side with more troops DOES NOT ALWAYS WIN. Just ask Israel.

Squirecam

How is it luck to have 1 Infantry successfully kill 24 attacking infantry?

[Guest]

It happens 1 in about 10,000 games.

And in LL, the Battle of the Bulge goes to Germany every time.  So does Midway.

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

It happens 1 in about 10,000 games.

And in LL, the Battle of the Bulge goes to Germany every time.  So does Midway.

But in LL you also never see a complete route of 12:1 odds.  So you have to make a choice, you want the possibility that 1 infantry in Germany will successfully hold off an attack by England, America and Russia who each throw 12 infantry, 1 armor into the fight, or do you want to know that 6 infantry are definately going to kill that 1 guy.

[Guest]

Jen, you must have the worst luck in the world.  You have apparently had every 10,000 to 1 possible result go against you that could ever be thought of the way you rant about your dice.

And folks say that I complain about dice…

[Natasin]

I certainly thought of these variants to satisfy even the most paranoid dicer roller.  My friends think I bring bad luck to my dice because of my attitude.  This is even more important when rolling starting stats for Dungeons and Dragon.  I am rarely satisfied with negative results unless I think it might benefit the character idea.

Though Switch, I would hate to think you would burn your board before giving up your dice :)  I personally would hate to see 1 infantry take on 12 infantry and win.  It would severly undermine my faith in strategy.  If it happened to me or against me I would feel cheated.  Luck should be as minimized as much as possible.  I often play dominos with my family and I dislike dominos due the immense inherent luck involved.  I still win often enough because I try to minimize the luck with good play.  I like to try stack the luck in my favor the best I can.

You bring up an interesting point squirecam, even if not intentionally.  Axis and Allies is not like Chess to be sure, but I do not mind losing at Chess.  I know that no random factor can inhibit my full potential.  The moves are solid and can be planned in advance.  This variant is meant to capture the feeling of Chess.  A player knows the implications of their moves before they make them.  The game becomes a great deal more about your overall strategy and you can plan your moves in advance to a greater degree.  The complaint would be that taking out luck takes out a lot of the surprise and the game becomes boring.  This variant is meant to give players an opportunity to plan more unorthodox strategies.

Another simple idea is to allow players to take a ‘10’ if they wish.  This is another D&D term that means a player can take the average result.  This means that a player can roll or take a ‘10.’  The defining difference between this one is that one can only take a 10 if you have forces that add up to 6, 12, 18 and so forth punches.  The rest is rolling and luck doom, but allows someone to be average if they wish.  The problem is that average often loses.  This is simply an idea.

Jen, I feel you dice pain.  Dice are the bane of the earth :) Nonetheless, games are fun.

[squirecam]

@ShadowHAwk:

@squirecam:

@Jennifer:

And yet, No Luck is a viable method of playing the game.  And, it has the added benefit of negating the need for a bid and changing what happens in a normally pretty static game.

LL is better.  Still some fluctuation.

LL is NOT axis and allies. So it could never be “better” as it is not part of the game.

Bidding is also not part of A&A it is a house rule just like LL is a house rule ( or variant if you preferr that )

One could even argue that LHTR are house rules since they did not came orriginaly with the box.

If you dont like LL and want to be dependant on the dice that is your choice but jenny and some others preferr to be dependant on strategy only and not on the dice.  There is no need to flame or start a holy war over this if you dont like to use that variant dont play like that.

In fact, an important part of the skill is taking the “luck” into account and playing accordingly.

This is verry subjective how would you deal with russia to 2 full turns of bad luck 3+ dice where germany has 2 full rounds of good luck 3- dice ? In that situation you would have lost your capital on turn 2 and there is verry little you could have done about it. Was your opponent more skillfull in that situation ?

Bidding does not eliminate a game mechanic. Dice are factored into the game. Bidding and LL are not equal.

It is a strategic decision to attack with “enough” forces. In LL this is always 51%. In A&A, 60% may not be enough. Do you “risk” it??

Without dice, USSR can attack with less pieces and guarantee itself german territories R1 that they would have to “risk” in attacking playing with dice. How is this more balanced and fair??

If you send 11000 infantry against one, and you somehow lose, then you lost. GET OVER IT. It is just a dice game.

And, yes, if you play in such a way to minimizre the dice rolls (attacking with as overwhelming odds as possible), and you beat a player who consistantly takes 1Inf 1 Fighter vs 1 inf and “dice cries” when he loses some of those battles, you were more skillful. Also smarter.

Most people dont like the following statement, but it is true. Even though this is a dice game, most games are won/lost by strategy, not by bad dice. If you attack 3 territories with a 55% 56% and 63% chance to win, and lose 2 of them, it was YOUR POOR STRATEGY that lost the game, not the dice. You could have attacked 2 territories at 85% chance to win, but chose not to. That was poor strategy not dice.

Also, I have had bad dice, but no bad dice should lead to a capital falling R2. I have won games where dice was incredibly poor R1&2. You just need to keep your head and play smart.

Squirecam

[Jennifer]

It just seems like I always have the worst luck with online dice rollers, Switch.  I guess it’s payback for having 80% efficiency with attacking infantry and AA Guns in real time play (where i have physical possession of the dice!  I’ll throw any number I want 4/5 times.  So that’s kinda LL, right?  I know I can probably take out 5 tanks with 5 infantry cause on R1 I’ll throw 4 '1’s and he’ll probably only throw 2-3 hits.  R2 I can throw at least 1 hit and he can throw 1 hit. :)  Using the same dice.)

But to be honest, I think of the 100s of SBRs I’ve done with online rollers it works out too (and I have the actual tally sheet from 2004-08-12 on) approximately 81 Successful Strategic Bombing Runs, 507 Bombers Shot Down.

That’s roughly 15-16% of the time I actually survive the Anti-Aircraft fire on SBR runs.  According to the laws of statistics, shouldn’t those two numbers be reversed?  Shouldn’t I only be getting shot down 1 out of 6 attempts over the long haul, not 5 out of 6 attempts?  (Of course, my numbers are biased in so much as they do not include results pre-dating 2004 and they do not include AA fire against fighters and bombers attacking provinces for conquest, but only for SBR runs.)

I think the codes need to be re-written so that you first check for a result of ‘6’ then work your way down to a ‘1’ instead of the other way.  The results of ‘1’ are way to prevalent on DAAK.  FROODs seem about right, I’ve used him on two combat rounds so far and they seemed about average.  The inhouse dice roll slightly on the good side for me , but not biased one way or the other as far as I can tell.  Flames I’ve only used once, and so far isn’t too dramatically stacked against me.

So yea, I’d say DAAK either has a very flawed program, or they have a line of code that is triggered only when I log into my account and use the server that results in all '6’s for me and all '1’s for my enemy. :)  Or so it seems.

Back to the topic on hand:

There is a lot to be said for the strategic positions of LL and NL.  Just as you can almost always win a battle where you have 60% to win, you also don’t have an almost 50/50 shot of a 40% to win chance of your defenders winning because of one bad throw of the dice for the attacker.  It keeps you more honest.  And in miniscule battles, the odds of fluctuation of results is identical in LL as in ADS.  1 Defending infantry has a 33% chance to score a hit in both systems.

[newpaintbrush]

Yep.

Skill’s required for backgammon too.  You just have to be able to work with what you get.

–

I take exception to this comment:

"If you dont like LL and want to be dependant on the dice that is your choice but jenny and some others preferr to be dependant on strategy only and not on the dice. "

Dealing with bad dice and exploiting good dice is a PART of a good strategy.  I don’t know where this whole mentality that low-luck is the only game for serious strategists arose, but it’s just not correct at all.

[Jennifer]

Luck defies strategy though.  Be definition alone, if not from practice.

If you put one infantry in there hoping that he will defeat an entire Japanese wave of 14 infantry, 3 tanks and 6 fighters I’d wager you are a very poor strategist….regardless how the dice come out.

[Guest]

That last post is VERY true.

But I will go ahead and lose that ONE game out of 100,000 where that would actually happen.

I have has some REALLY bad series of dice in a number of games.  I mean the 2-3 turns of horrendous dice that Jen is complaining about.  You know somethign, the last game that I got really dice slammed for 3 straight turns, I won the game.  Why?  because I outplayed my opponent and was able to make the dice WORK for me, good or bad.

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

That last post is VERY true.

But I will go ahead and lose that ONE game out of 100,000 where that would actually happen.

I have has some REALLY bad series of dice in a number of games.  I mean the 2-3 turns of horrendous dice that Jen is complaining about.  You know somethign, the last game that I got really dice slammed for 3 straight turns, I won the game.  Why?  because I outplayed my opponent and was able to make the dice WORK for me, good or bad.

Yea, I done that once or twice too, it’s called turtling and praying for that one round of combat he gets atrocious dice and crucifying him for it!

[Guest]

No it is called playing to advantage.  Slight shift of focus to go after a weaker spot, reducing your short-term expectations and aiming at a longer term for reaching goals, etc.

In short, it is called being able to think and adjust strats on the fly.

And THAT was always my main argument against LL.  People like Agent Smith who has spent a couple months with a SIM to work out the one best way to do things are SCREWED when faced with the unknown.  The very first time they lose more units than expected, their entire remainign battle plan is TOAST.  Then, you just out think them, instead of trying to out-sim them.