What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

CJ: Its about friggin time you showed up here.

I see the game having lots of luck and thats a good thing. Too many people take it too seriously and miss the point that its also a social interaction and fun to play. This game no matter what people say is basically “buckets of dice” approach to determine outcome of battles, while the odds of a bad die roll will eventually even out, the timing of when you get the bad or good rolls is of crucial importance and can in fact lead to major reasons why some players can do well. The axis player cannot suffer a bad rolling on the early game or his game will falter, while the allies can still do okay when the dice runs cold. I also think that Milton Bradley had more luck which was usually a problem with the map and Karellia with its two opposing stacks. The game was usually decided here and a cold dice on the early rounds of combat would spell disaster on that player. Those issues were opened up in revised, but the pressure points were now assigned to a number of hot spots rather than just Karellia.

But as i say the dice are an important reason why the game is for social recreation. If it was true strategy then it would be more like Chess which has far more strategy.

If U don’t consider the possibility of bad dice, when you push for a Major battle, in a game of NO luck, then you are a FOOL and deserve the loss that is soon to follow. JWW

It’s cousin joe!

zomg!

I think we should look at the much-more-analyzed Backgammon. A very similar Skill vs. Luck analysis is at:
http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Zare/HedgingTowardSkill.html
Several software (GNU, Snowie, Jellyfish etc) using genetically-trained Neural Networks succeeded to estimate ‘values’ of positions in terms of ‘equity’ or probability to win to resolutions of 0.001 (not sure if they are really that ‘right’ or non-biased, absolutely or comparing variants). Then analyzing ordinary human play, they found errors cumulating to winning and losing each game several times over ;-) so it becomes essentially a contest of making less errors !

Essentially the question in A&A and any other games is: how “easy” is for real humans to do mistakes with effects comparable to the normal fluctuations of luck ?

[Backgammon] is a game of skill and luck.
If one wins it’s skill, if one loses it’s luck.

An excellent point, especially coming on the results of a game I just finished…

Is it luck to get teh 1 in 10 result for a given battle?  Or is it poor play that allowed you to be a situation where you were dependent on a 4 in 5 result or face certain defeat?

Sure, the odds say you will usually win, but if can AVOID the 8 in 10 risk and the possibility of the 1 in 10 result and till achieve your goals toward victory, would that not be superior play?

@ncscswitch:

… but if can AVOID the 8 in 10 risk and the possibility of the 1 in 10 result and till achieve your goals toward victory, would that not be superior play?

Quite possiblly but very boring…

Boring tends to win… Most of the time.

Good… then a working definition of Skill would be “that thing that would need less Luck” ??

Skillful play == play that bores your opponent into making a mistake.  :evil:

Skillful play means play that forces your opponent to TAKE RISKS in order to try to keep from losing.

Dice tend to even out, so the player that relies on them the least will USUALLY win.

@ncscswitch:

Skillful play means play that forces your opponent to TAKE RISKS in order to try to keep from losing.

Dice tend to even out, so the player that relies on them the least will USUALLY win.

Skillful play can also force your opponent to not make any moves or retreat b/c they are exposed to unacceptable risk if they do. Of course, not moving, or retreating, can carry its own risk, even if it avoids any dice.

@Baghdaddy:

Skillful play == play that bores your opponent into making a mistake.   :evil:

for some reason war of attrition popped into my head as i read that.

I have won several games by boring my opponent with my moves so that they “forced” a battle to try to break things open, and thus lost.

all depends on the opponents number 1.

if 2 opponents are about equal then I would say 1-4 games out of 10 games “Luck” may have a serious impact on a game.
it’s a part of the game.

@ncscswitch:

I have won several games by boring my opponent with my moves so that they “forced” a battle to try to break things open, and thus lost.

Boring my opponent is a favourite of mine with the allies :), sometimes Lady Luck doesn’t always go your way when the opponent is forced to make a move and you think it is in your favor but that’s what makes Axis and Allies a fun game.

:-o
  This thread has been very edjucational, witty and sometimes boring, ( I laughed and I went to sleep).
  What I got out of the original Query was this; In my opinion, what % of games I played do I think the die results were the determining factor as to the outcome of the game. Because I can only view this from one viewpoint; Mine :roll:
  So, my gut feeling was about 70% of the time, when I felt I was playing those of rather equal experience, and sharing comparitively the same statregy concepts.
Luck builds on itself. A little here a little more there, and if it is good to one player more than the other, it will decide the outcome.
But we play on, hoping it will smile on us again, and we can be the master once more :wink:
  All in all, we don’t rely on the luck as much as try to learn to be better players, introduce a new winning strategy and all the AA world will beat a path to your gameboard and try to counter it.
Play on my gaming friends, damn the luck, cause if it wasn’t for bad luck, I wouldn’t have any at all :cry: or; my strategies suck :|
  I look forward to meeting some of you in the gameroom,
  Crazy Ivan
  By the way, can anyone tell me how to get there from here?

You can’t.  Because once you are there, you are here.  :evil:

@axis_roll:

@Crazy:

By the way, can anyone tell me how to get there from here?

Very simple

add a “T”.

Lol.

That sure would make working in the “IT” department a lot more interesting.

@newpaintbrush:

@axis_roll:

@Crazy:

By the way, can anyone tell me how to get there from here?

Very simple

add a “T”.

Lol.

That sure would make working in the “IT” department a lot more interesting.

@axis_roll:

ttt

No, that would be the TIT department, not the TTT department.