DarthMaximus, neither of us is attempting to argue that a single good-odds battle is the penultimate goal of a LL or ADS strategy. The question is whether or not LL and ADS employ different strategies, and my answer to that is no. Your answer is yes (I believe).
Your stance, if I understand correctly, is that with LL, you employ the odds-on line, and with ADS, there’s some give and take, but the optimal strategy line still holds.
My stance, though, is that since LL allows you to employ the odds-on line, LL allows you to carry out attacks that would be ridiculous under ADS, and that therefore strategies that are ridiculous under ADS are viable under LL.
Allow me to refer to my earlier Norway-West Russia-Ukraine attack description. To wit, with ADS, the attacker has little control over bad outcomes, and probability distribution plays some role, so the strategy has a 60% chance of failure, of which a fair proportion is considered “disasteriffic” to use Rikku (Final Fantasy X) terminology. So the attack is simply unsound from the outset under ADS, this is obvious.
Under LL, however, the attacker has moderate control over bad outcomes, so has a 32% chance of moderate failure, but a 68% chance of outright success. So under LL, although this strategy MAY be countered in the long-term by Germany, it is NOT necessarily simply unsound as the ADS attack is.
So under ADS, you shoot yourself in the butt RIGHT AWAY, but under LL, who knows? I will say, though, that to say that Germany will in time find an efficient counter for this LL strategy simply because the strategy is immediately unviable in ADS is logically unsound!
If you can explain how it is INEVITABLE that the Norway-West Russia-Ukraine attack will inevitably fail under Low-Luck, and tie that to the fact that the Norway-West Russia-Ukraine attack is a bad-odds attack under ADS, then I feel that the position that LL and ADS strategies are analogous is sound.
However, my little brain cannot right now comprehend how that would be possible, so I will leave it to wiser minds to explain. (Platonic gloating ensues :-D)