It was stupid that he left only 1 inf to defend but on the other hand you had about a 30% or even less chance to win.
1 inf vs 1 inf is not a good chance.So it is not really skill that you won, you gambled big time and it payed of.
I would hardly say that risking 1 INF (and maybe a TRN) for the chance of taking EUS (robbing the US player of probably 40IPCs of cash and stalling them from purchasing for two rounds even if the territory is retaken immediately) is “gambling big time”.
~Josh
well, when your bomber squadrons are destroyed by a fat merchant marine with a .45 that is not a lack of skill. a lone transport is just what a bomber is looking for. but those things happen sometimes :| just be grateful it isn’t real life, set 'em up and try again
Let me drop a bone to you guys… this just happened in a 5-player game I’m playing here on the forums.
It’s US3 and Japan has just dropped off units to w.can leaving 3 trns in sz63. My bomber is stationed in novo and I decide to be a daredevil and give it a go. All 3 trns sunk and bomber lives. Landing on midway with 1 inf for protection. Japan also has 1 trn in sz60 and 2 inf on Japan, no air in range. Now…
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
@Sankt:
Let me drop a bone to you guys… this just happened in a 5-player game I’m playing here on the forums.
It’s US3 and Japan has just dropped off units to w.can leaving 3 trns in sz63. My bomber is stationed in novo and I decide to be a daredevil and give it a go. All 3 trns sunk and bomber lives. Landing on midway with 1 inf for protection. Japan also has 1 trn in sz60 and 2 inf on Japan, no air in range. Now…
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
No, you managed your risks. Perhaps you felt that taking out the transports was:
1). Too big of a reward to NOT take the 22% risk
2). The only way to get back into the game (if you were behind)
3). You probably felt that the bomber would not live so you didn’t worry about defending him in Midway.
22% is a high outcome percentage… you WILL see these results. Now if you posted something like a 2-4% outcome, then I might call that a bit lucky.
I would say your opponent took a calculated risk as well that didn’t pay off for him. If he could afford the transports, then perhaps he was ok with that risk. If losing 3 transports may now cost him the game, then he took a bad gamble (unless he is losing). he then mis-mangaged his risks.
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
No roll of the dice could ever be called “skilled.” Â All dice rolls are lucky or unlucky, accepting the notion that they are truly random.
Your opponent clearly saw your Bomber in Novo, and took the risk of leaving 3 unescorted transports within easy striking distance. Â Probably assumed that you wouldn’t risk the Bomber against 3 1s. Â You were bold and made the attack, with a very low likelihood that your Bomber would survive the combat. Â You were lucky in the results, no question.
The issue of skill comes into play when determining your strategy and tactics accounting for the luck factor built into the game. Â Every player must take risks in individual battles at some point. Â The question is how skillfully you are able to judge when to take those risks and when not to, and whether or not you have developed a backup plan in case your carefully-judged risks should end up on the unlucky side for you.
The US can usually afford to lose the Bomber if it means crippling the Japanese transport system… I wonder if you would have made the same decision to attack if it were a UK Bomber nearby? Â
~Josh
PS - Â And I think your opponent will certainly attack Midway. Â He definitely wants to kill that Bomber now. Â Maybe it wasn’t a good idea to leave it in reach of anything.
PS - Â And I think your opponent will certainly attack Midway. Â He definitely wants to kill that Bomber now. Â Maybe it wasn’t a good idea to leave it in reach of anything.
I could just as easily have landed it in safety in w.us but decided to push my luck by using midway. sz60 is no longer safe for his trn(he has only 2 left now, the other with the fleet in sz37). He will either have to attack me at midway or move out of reach of my bomber. If he attacks I still have a 60% chance to survive with the bomber. Certainly worth the gamble for him by throwing 2 inf at me, but if he fails it will also result in him losing another trn.
I feel that taking out 3 Jap trns in round 3 is a game-breaker. It is a huge setback for the axis, it will take a lot of smart moves and some help from the dice to get back into the action. This was caused by me being “lucky” in the sense that 3 trns should more often than not come out victorious from such a battle. Personally I wouldn’t trust 3 trns to do the job so it could be argued(IMO) that my opponent made a misjudgement.
But the second part of my operation is just as risky. Risking a 15 ipc unit(which I probably will replace at one point or another if lost) to get a unit worth 8. Here my reasoning is that by sending that trn in(at 40% success) he is risking his trn and it is NOT sending units towards russia. A failure also means he will not be able to evacuate his canadian landing party. His purchase must also take into account that my bomber can survive so buying 3 new trns without protection may prove costly if I can repeat my dice rolls. Actually I think he is more of a daredevil than me if he does not buy a capital ship with the new trns. (Unless he skips trns altogether for one round)
These examples to show just how intricate some decisions can be and what great part the dice can play in smaller but crucial battles, especially early round sea battles.
sure sounds allot like risk management to me more than LUCK… IMHO.
Frankly, for me, I find it is better to manage my risks.
No, you managed your risks.Â
…
I would say your opponent took a calculated risk as well that didn’t pay off for him. If he could afford the transports, then perhaps he was ok with that risk. If losing 3 transports may now cost him the game, then he took a bad gamble (unless he is losing). he then mis-mangaged his risks.
Gotta agree. It was the decision to leave them potentially vulnerable that was the cause, not luck.
Lets also be clear on something… He had 3 1’s to shoot your bomber R1. They obviously missed. You hit.
R2 he has 2 1’s. “Low luck”/odds/avg counters might say well you “should” get a hit here, since you will have had 5 shots at it. But the dice “dont care” that they missed R1. They dont keep track. For them, its the same 1/6 chance it always was.
Sometimes folks forget that in counting “avg” hits…
Squirecam
CS has it down…
Risk management will win over bad dice almost every time
Unless both players are equally good an risk management.
Then you are talking the first player to make the most significant MISTAKE.
And the earlier the mistake, the more likely it will be to result in the final outcome since the error is cumulative through the game.
the dice are the dice
they have won me games (occasionally) and they have lost me games (every loss :wink:)
without the potential ‘fluke’ results the game is little more than chess (which is great, but different)
i agree that the early ‘out of norm’ result skews the game more dramatically, but that is the challenge sin’t it?
i also think the small battles that have bizarre outcomes (lone transpot takes out brit dd and cv for exapmle) are more devestating than the large ones taht you can retreat from and regroup.
Luck can be a big factor yes! Dice can be very hard on you… My last game I attacked 5INF, 3ARM, 2FIG, with 6INF, 3ARM, 7FIG, 1BOM. I made zero hits on the INF. and only 1 hit on the 10 three’s and also missed with the bomber. Then my opponent made 4 hits out of five on the INF and hit with all his ARM and FIG. He made 9 hits, I only one. BTW I was Japan, he Russia… and it was from Sinkiang into Novobirisk…
LL is the answer. Save it frimmel!
Luck can be a big factor yes! Dice can be very hard on you… My last game I attacked 5INF, 3ARM, 2FIG, with 6INF, 3ARM, 7FIG, 1BOM. I made zero hits on the INF. and only 1 hit on the 10 three’s and also missed with the bomber. Then my opponent made 4 hits out of five on the INF and hit with all his ARM and FIG. He made 9 hits, I only one. BTW I was Japan, he Russia… and it was from Sinkiang into Novobirisk…
I saw some of the expansions of A&A have cards. Do they offset the luck factor of the dice?
I saw some of the expansions of A&A have cards. Do they offset the luck factor of the dice?
I’ve played a many of card-driven military board games and the luck factor is just a high as dice only games.
@Mr:
I saw some of the expansions of A&A have cards. Do they offset the luck factor of the dice?
I’ve played a many of card-driven military board games and the luck factor is just a high as dice only games.
Ahem, if you are drawings cards, how is that any less random (barring cheating) than rolling dice?
I agree with critmonster – the bizarre results make the game more interesting. Think of it this way – if every game played out the exact same way, then how interesting is that? Chess is a bad comparison in some ways because, except for the fact White moves first, the players are perfectly evenly matched. Not so in A&A. The game is carefully balanced, but the Allies and Axis clearly don’t have all the same pieces or all the same advantages. Their positions, pieces, economies and opportunities are all different.
A great example is a recent game I played where, as Japan, I DID NOT GET A SINGLE HIT IN PEARL HARBOR! Lost 5 pieces (yes, probably should have pulled back) and then proceeded to lose my transport fleet on the U.S.'s turn. Talk about your big holes, but it was great fun figuring out how to dig out of that situation. I probably won’t face that again for another 50 games, but you bet I’ll always remember THAT battle!
So my point is, the bizarrely random results are the stuff of which great war stories are made! That’s why we all spend our time on a forum dedicated to a dice game instead of being hunched over our chess boards. :wink:
