• 2007 AAR League

    @squirecam:

    @froodster:

    Equal skill means equal skill at managing the dice.

    Assume I played myself. Both sides played by virtually identical players. Or better yet, the computer plays itself. The winner will be determined purely by luck, as there is no other difference between the players.

    If “you” played “yourself”, eventually one of you will make a tactical/strategic mistake. Mistakes happen in every game. [Dont tell me you never make a mistake] You may put too few pieces in a territory to block, or have some units out of position, or fail to take a key territory.

    Therefore, the “other you” will take advantage of this mistake.

    So am I a better player or a worse player than I am when that happens? I guess you could call it “luck” that your opponent makes a mistake.

    As for a “computer”, the Axis & Allies AI has always been piss poor. So that argument fails too. If ever a great AI is developed (wont ever happen in my lifetime) let me know.

    How does that argument fail? Note that in my initial post I said players of equal skill, not equal brilliant skill. You’re not saying that the Weak AI for UK is weaker than the Weak AI for Japan, are you? It’s the same AI, therefore equal skill (except of course that the AI may be more adapted to one country)

    By definition, when all else is equal, the only factor left is luck.

    I still maintain that when you have two equally matched opponents, it’s a coin toss which of them will win. Whether that is which one will make a mistake first or which one will have bad dice, it’s still luck. You can be a good player and still make a mistake. If you consistently make mistakes though, you are a bad player.

    And if a player who constantly makes mistakes faces a player who almost never makes mistakes, luck becomes less of a factor - only incredibly good/bad dice will level the playing field, so luck is less of a factor.

    To put it another way, to beat a complete noob, or TripleA’s AI, I wouldn’t need much luck, so luck would not be much of a factor in that game. I’ll win every time, good luck or bad. Regardless of luck, I win. Therefore, luck is not a factor.

    To beat an equally matched opponent (definition: we have played 1,000 games against each other and each won 500) I’ll probably win if I get lucky and lose if I don’t. It’s a coin toss. Luck. Me winning or losing game #1001 does not prove I am better or worse, just that that time luck was on my side.


  • @froodster:

    @squirecam:

    @froodster:

    Equal skill means equal skill at managing the dice.

    Assume I played myself. Both sides played by virtually identical players. Or better yet, the computer plays itself. The winner will be determined purely by luck, as there is no other difference between the players.

    If “you” played “yourself”, eventually one of you will make a tactical/strategic mistake. Mistakes happen in every game. [Dont tell me you never make a mistake] You may put too few pieces in a territory to block, or have some units out of position, or fail to take a key territory.

    Therefore, the “other you” will take advantage of this mistake.

    So am I a better player or a worse player than I am when that happens? I guess you could call it “luck” that your opponent makes a mistake.

    When Peyton manning miscalculates and throws an INT returned for an TD (because the DB happened to be in the right place to see the route), was that luck? Colt fans may cry that it was.

    It was Peyton’s mistake.

    Mistakes are not “luck”. They are “your” failures. “Your” miscalculation. “Your” judgment.

    Essentially, they are YOUR fault.

    Even playing yourself, neither of “you” are perfect. One of you WILL make more mistakes than the other one of “you”. That is not luck, that was “your” fault. Next time, “you” should try to do better.


  • @froodster:

    [How does that argument fail? Note that in my initial post I said players of equal skill, not equal brilliant skill. You’re not saying that the Weak AI for UK is weaker than the Weak AI for Japan, are you? It’s the same AI, therefore equal skill (except of course that the AI may be more adapted to one country) [/quote]

    The AI is terrible. It makes many mistakes. One of these will be so bad, that the other AI country cannot help but take advantage of it. Therefore, the mistakes are the cause of the loss.

    I do think the AI “can be better adapted” for one country though (such as USSR which only has land units to consider).

  • 2007 AAR League

    @squirecam:

    Even playing yourself, neither of “you” are perfect. One of you WILL make more mistakes than the other one of “you”. That is not luck, that was “your” fault. Next time, “you” should try to do better.

    Well, I’m not going to beat myself up over it… Omigosh I just made a funny.

    I think you don’t understand the concept of “all else being equal”. That leaves whatever isn’t DEFINED as equal as the determining factor. A little Gedanken experiment. Or if you don’t believe there can be truly equal players, consider it as “as skill differential approaches 0”.

    There IS an element of luck in the game (dice) and it plays a bigger role proportionally as other factors become smaller (ie. difference in skill).

    To make it really simple: my two equal players have both amassed forces of 100 armor. Who wins the decisive battle, the smart one or the lucky one? Since brains can’t influence dice, I put my money on the lucky one. It’s interesting to note that mutual annihilation in that scenario is a pretty unlikely result - one or the other will survive with an average of 8 or 9 tanks, purely because of luck. Between these otherwise very closely matched players, that advantage is decisive and determines the game.

    Whatever. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. And I think the football analogy is weak.


  • @froodster:

    @squirecam:

    Even playing yourself, neither of “you” are perfect. One of you WILL make more mistakes than the other one of “you”. That is not luck, that was “your” fault. Next time, “you” should try to do better.

    Well, I’m not going to beat myself up over it… Omigosh I just made a funny.

    I think you don’t understand the concept of “all else being equal”. That leaves whatever isn’t DEFINED as equal as the determining factor. A little Gedanken experiment. Or if you don’t believe there can be truly equal players, consider it as “as skill differential approaches 0”.

    There IS an element of luck in the game (dice) and it plays a bigger role proportionally as other factors become smaller (ie. difference in skill).

    To make it really simple: my two equal players have both amassed forces of 100 armor. Who wins the decisive battle, the smart one or the lucky one? Since brains can’t influence dice, I put my money on the lucky one. It’s interesting to note that mutual annihilation in that scenario is a pretty unlikely result - one or the other will survive with an average of 8 or 9 tanks, purely because of luck. Between these otherwise very closely matched players, that advantage is decisive and determines the game.

    Whatever. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. And I think the football analogy is weak.

    No, what you dont get is that against your 100 armor, I will have a mix of inf/armor. Which costs the same IPC, but is more likely to win me the battle. In which case, the dice didnt screw you, it was your strategy of 100 tanks that did.

    The football analogy is 100% true. But you seem to want to blame anything but “you” for a loss. Not surprising, since so many do.

    You cannot be “equal” because you cannot eliminate mistakes in decision making. That is your flaw. No matter what scenario, human beings will make mistakes.

    And I guess you will never “get that”.


  • @squirecam:

    I could care less whether you “buy” it. It happens. From personal experience, an Origins opponent took Ukraine with USSR, AFTER I added 2 inf as a bid, with NO GERMAN HITS. The German counter into Ukraine was REPULSED. Egypt was empty and Germany had no fleet due to the forced UKR counter attack.

    I won that game. Not because the dice magically turned, but because I was better. Sorry that you quit instead of taking the opportunity to treat it as a challenge, “how well can I do given these conditions”.

    Regarding your opponent at Origins, he was clearly in a different league. Even I would have smacked your bum with those results from G1.

    Disagree. Attacking UKR, (especially with a bid, but even without) is a risky move. You do so, you run the risk of losing or the dice going badly. However, had you moved all your troops into west russia, you have an overwhelming chance to kill the Germans in ONE ROUND, and REDUCE the hits coming back at you.

    I say that the WR only strategy is better. Therefore, why people who use it probably win more than you do.

    Similarly, attacking the BB wth 3 Fighters + sub is MUCH different than attacking with the BB+trans+sub+fighters and taking Gibraltar. Again, a better strategy.

    Huh? I’d think the german player would move his troops while you scramble in w.russia. R1 is your only shot at taking out that German fig. Whoever said I don’t win a lot? Stop making assumptions about my play from my views on luck. I have yet to play someone doing just the WR attack, though. Maybe it’s superior, but I doubt it. Belo would be a better solution and Ukraine even more so.

    If you think attacking the bb with the med fleet is a better move regardless I’m doubting your strategic assessments. Every move in this game has consequences. Bringing the fleet will result in a stronger attack, but with that a lot weaker at Egypt. (or do you forego it?)

    I use both approaches, btw. I can’t tell whether one is superior to the other, there are way too many variables in each game to get a true feeling. You also haven’t mentioned the mental aspect of the game with one word. Just like in poker bluffing is a major part as well. I may be unwilling to sacrifice my German airforce to sink your UK navy but I can trick you into believing I will regardless. (Or you can call my bluff and I will come out losing) You can be as fluid, flexible and adaptable as no one else, ultimately dice will decide most games. That does not mean that a number of players playing 1000 games between them one may have a win percentage of 80% and another 50%. However, I seriously doubt anyone would have such a high win percentage as 80%. During all those games his opponents would adjust their play along the way and even if they could not copy the master 100% luck would mostly even the results out.

    90% luck, 10% skill.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Argh. What you don’t get is that I am defining a hypothetical. You can’t change my hypothetical on me, make your own. In my hypothetical both players have amassed forces of equal strength. That can happen, no? Granted it might be dumb to pull the trigger in that situation, but remember my players might be equally stupid, not equally brilliant. But even if equally brilliant, if neither player can gain an edge as DEFINED IN MY HYPOTHETICAL, eventually one or the other will have to decide to let the dice decide.

    And I am not one to blame the dice when I lose. I haven’t lost yet  :-P (only three games here admittedly). My tournament game I won with the help of some good dice, but with bad dice I would have won a round later. I’m not saying luck is the only factor ever. You seem to be saying it is not a factor at all. I totally agree that a good player minimizes their exposure to bad luck.

    But me and Sime were pretty close in terms of skill I think. With different dice, he might have won, or it would have taken me longer to win.

    What I’m saying is that luck makes a BIGGER difference the closer in skill the players get. If I was playing a 4 year old kid who had never played a board game before in his life, I would win every time, luck or no luck - do you disagree? Then luck is not a factor in that game because it’s effect is insignificant compared to the skill differential.

    Between relatively equally matched opponents, luck will make a much bigger difference, because the other differences are not as big as they are between unmatched opponents.

    You can be “relatively equal” can’t you? Or does every single game prove that the winner is the best and the loser is an idiot? Would you say that about the game between Switch and JSP?


  • @froodster:

    You can be “relatively equal” can’t you? Or does every single game prove that the winner is the best and the loser is an idiot? Would you say that about the game between Switch and JSP?

    Much like 1984 he sees himself as more equal than others.

    A game between switch and jsp would, unless one or both decide to “go experimental”, be decided by 90% luck and 10% skill.

    A game between you and me would be decided by 90% luck and 10% skill.

    A game between me and Mr SifadyasCam here would be decided by 10% luck and 90% skill. That mass of “skill” bringing me victory, of course.  :wink:

  • Moderator

    Like poker, A&A is a skill game.

    Luck has very little to do with who wins long term.


  • @froodster:

    Argh. What you don’t get is that I am defining a hypothetical. You can’t change my hypothetical on me, make your own. In my hypothetical both players have amassed forces of equal strength. That can happen, no? Granted it might be dumb to pull the trigger in that situation, but remember my players might be equally stupid, not equally brilliant. But even if equally brilliant, if neither player can gain an edge as DEFINED IN MY HYPOTHETICAL, eventually one or the other will have to decide to let the dice decide.

    Between relatively equally matched opponents, luck will make a much bigger difference, because the other differences are not as big as they are between unmatched opponents.

    You can be “relatively equal” can’t you? Or does every single game prove that the winner is the best and the loser is an idiot? Would you say that about the game between Switch and JSP?

    Yes, people can be “equally good.” But how does that eliminate mistakes??? The best player alive will still make mistakes.

    You cannot sit here and say in every game between 2 people no one ever screws up or makes a mistake. It doesnt have to be a big one. Maybe only 2-3 infantry are out of place. But that infanty is the difference between deciding to attack or not. The infantry not being there, the attack has a % outcome, the players decides to attack.

    For instance:

    Player A left 2 infantry “out of place”

    With that 2 infantry, Player B has only 55% chance of success. Without that 2 inf, his success rate is 70% or better.
    Player B attacks. He wins.

    That misplaced inf caused player B to attack. Without it, he (a conservative player) would not have attacked.

    Was that dice? luck?

    No, it was your mistake that caused the attack.

    If 2 players are “equally horrible”, then there are SO MANY mistakes, how can you justify the dice being the factor?

    If 2 players are “the best”, sooner or later one guy will make a mistake. That usually leads to victory.

    Only if these players were “perfect” and NEVER made a mistake would luck be “the” deciding factor. This is your computer example. Except no computer AI like this EXISTS. No AI is good, let alone perfect. If ever that changes, like I said, let me know.

    Of course dice/luck has some influence. But strategies should be designed to compensate for them. If one cannot compensate for “some” bad dice, then their loss is due to that failure to compensate, not the dice. At some point, like i said earlier, bad dice will be unable to be overcome. Such is NOT the situation after G1, and certainly not due to the 2 examples posted above (Egypt and the BB).

    If you can “never ever recover” from that situation, then you either quit to easy, or have a bad strategy.

    And, finally, if a 100 tank vs 100 tank battle occurs, yes I say the loss was strategy. Why did I match you tank for tank. Why didnt I try something more cost effective. Sure the dice “could” have been mine, but a better strategy would have given me a better dice chance. You have to agree on that.


  • @Sankt:

    Huh? I’d think the german player would move his troops while you scramble in w.russia. R1 is your only shot at taking out that German fig.

    So? If you cant take out that fighter, you cant win??  You are suddenly in a huge hole going to be beaten??  Please.

    There are several strategies which dont require a UKR attack R1. And attacking it in the face of a bid risks failure.

    And since the Origins player in question has won a few games, and been in the masters at GCI, he’s probably “pretty good”. You have no idea whether he is good or not.

    Continue to believe its 90% luck. I dont care. But for the new players who come here looking for advice, know that this game is skill based, and you should spend time learning it and learning strategy rather than quitting on G1 after minor setbacks.


  • @squirecam:

    So? If you cant take out that fighter, you cant win??  You are suddenly in a huge hole going to be beaten??  Please.

    There are several strategies which dont require a UKR attack R1. And attacking it in the face of a bid risks failure.

    And since the Origins player in question has won a few games, and been in the masters at GCI, he’s probably “pretty good”. You have no idea whether he is good or not.

    Continue to believe its 90% luck. I dont care. But for the new players who come here looking for advice, know that this game is skill based, and you should spend time learning it and learning strategy rather than quitting on G1 after minor setbacks.

    You’re an arrogant. And I’m not even gonna add “IMHO” to that.

    You are no doubt a better and more experienced player than me, though. But unlike your pro at origins I’d smack you good with 3 inf, 1 art, 3 arm in ukraine at R1. Especially when your counter fails miserably as you said, that means you’ve lost at least 7 units on the counter. And your Egypt strike went sour… There is no coming back from that, you are either too arrogant or too optimistic to believe that.

    DM Edit.

  • Moderator

    Squire and Sankt, lets make sure we keep this a friendly debate.  :-)


  • @DarthMaximus:

    Squire and Sankt, lets make sure we keep this a friendly debate.   :-)

    Yay, my first moderation. And me out of all people, I’m all sunshine.  :cry:

    If you are condescending me, belittling me or making assumptions about me or bestowing views upon me that I don’t have you WILL hit my trigger-values. Which is why I put pleasantries aside and stated the obvious, he’s an arrogant *****. Leaving the ball dead now, eternal sunshine, happy thoughts…  :-)


  • @Sankt:

    @squirecam:

    So? If you cant take out that fighter, you cant win??  You are suddenly in a huge hole going to be beaten??  Please.

    There are several strategies which dont require a UKR attack R1. And attacking it in the face of a bid risks failure.

    And since the Origins player in question has won a few games, and been in the masters at GCI, he’s probably “pretty good”. You have no idea whether he is good or not.

    Continue to believe its 90% luck. I dont care. But for the new players who come here looking for advice, know that this game is skill based, and you should spend time learning it and learning strategy rather than quitting on G1 after minor setbacks.

    You’re an arrogant. And I’m not even gonna add “IMHO” to that.

    You are no doubt a better and more experienced player than me, though. But unlike your pro at origins I’d smack you good with 3 inf, 1 art, 3 arm in ukraine at R1. Especially when your counter fails miserably as you said, that means you’ve lost at least 7 units on the counter. And your Egypt strike went sour… There is no coming back from that, you are either too arrogant or too optimistic to believe that.

    DM Edit.

    I think I’ve stated my arguments. At no point did I attack you personally or call you any names. I never stated I was better than you or anyone else for that matter, except the “pro” at Origins.

    In fact this debate has even been about “you” playing “you”, in which case relative skill doesnt exist. Apparently, you seem to feel the need to attack me. Its nothing I havent heard before.

    I was never “too arrogant” or “optimistic” about that game. Like I said, instead of quitting, I took it as a challenge. How good could I do given crappy circumstances.

    Also, the opponent in question was an agressive player. As I said earlier, agressive players can take advantage of dice, but if they over extend or have bad luck, they can end up letting there opponent back in it.

    Thats what ended up happening. He pressed his advantage, rather than turtle. I was able to get back in it. And yes, I thought I was a better player than him, not that he was bad.

    But dont say I make assumptions about you, when you make many assumptions about who I have played and how good they are.

    Are you disagreeing with me that attacking UKR with 2 bid units is risky?? If your not, then what I said was true. USSR has strategies to win without getting that air G1.

    If you think its not risky, (and the attack is 50/50) then what is??


  • @squirecam:

    But dont say I make assumptions about you, when you make many assumptions about who I have played and how good they are.

    Are you disagreeing with me that attacking UKR with 2 bid units is risky?? If your not, then what I said was true. USSR has strategies to win without getting that air G1.

    If you think its not risky, (and the attack is 50/50) then what is??

    Don’t make it seem like I’m the one attacking you on a personal level. Your posts did all what I just said, although in a more or less “subtle” manner. I guess that’s ok on a forum, but it’s not good tone. If you said that to anyone face to face you’d be considered rude.

    I totally agree attacking Ukraine is risky, even without a bid. Standalone there is a 90% chance to take the territory so that’s acceptable, the reason it is risky is the value of the units used(and probably lost) and what you lose in the w.russia attack which is considerably weaker without the extra art/arm. I’ve often done the w.russia/belo instead because it feels a lot safer. But if I could get average dice every time I would choose to hit ukraine instead since the payoff of a successful attack is so much higher.


  • OK, Neutral corners…


  • @Sankt:

    @axis_roll:

    You are admittedly relatively new to the game, so have some faith in the veterans of this game.  Dice b*ing is common in this game… and I admit there are times when no matter what you do, the dice will not let you win.

    If this invariability is still too much for you to deal (with your chess background), I would suggest you either play Low Luck games or some other variant that relies more on strategy rather than dice roll…

    Haha, you are wonderfully arrogant! I know I’m relatively new to the game, but winning that doubles tournament has got to count for something? And getting to the bronze final in last year’s singles? (Though I withdrew prior to the match)

    Regretfully I have no chess background and I dislike LowLuck in its current form. Something called MediumLuck or something would be more my thing, but I’m settled with luck being a big part of the game. 90% to be precise!  :-D

    My apologies, I confused you with the originator of this thread Johnny.


  • @Sankt:

    @squirecam:

    But dont say I make assumptions about you, when you make many assumptions about who I have played and how good they are.

    Are you disagreeing with me that attacking UKR with 2 bid units is risky?? If your not, then what I said was true. USSR has strategies to win without getting that air G1.

    If you think its not risky, (and the attack is 50/50) then what is??

    But if I could get average dice every time I would choose to hit ukraine instead since the payoff of a successful attack is so much higher.

    Which is why it works much better in LL. But maybe now you see what I have been saying. A person might make an attack like ukraine, with only a 55% chance of success, but when it goes bad, complain they got diced.  Sure, averages say they “should” win, but nothing ever always goes as planned. I would rather argue that in this situation, the decision to attack was more responsible for the loss than the bad dice was.


  • @DarthMaximus:

    Like poker, A&A is a skill game.

    Luck has very little to do with who wins long term.

    I concur

    I think alot of this game has to do with managing risks.  
    Yes, Ukr on R1 does not have the best odds. Â

    There’s a good prize when you win (kill German ftr, sometimes even take the land ($ and force Germany to retake).  Personally, I think the prize if worth the risk. Â

    If the risk doesn’t pay and I lose ukraine, is the game ‘over’?  Doubtful.

    Why?  You could say because it’s so early in the game.
    I would say it’s because (unless I am extremely desperate), I don’t hang the outcome of a game on one battle.

    I manage my risks…

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 169
  • 3
  • 16
  • 7
  • 46
  • 18
  • 13
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

31

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts