• We need a HL option - Half-ass Luck  :roll:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I meant that you total up your units and then figure out your auto hits and your remainder.  Not that armor + fighters = total punch.  Armor have their own punch, fighters their own punch.

    This doesn’t eliminate precision strafing, but it sure knocks it for a loop in most scenarios that one may encounter.  You start to run the risk of actually winning and thus being exposed or quitting before hitting optimal levels.

    Also, it’s stronger for the defense, I think, since your units almost all defend better and thus, would have greater individual group punches then if you totaled them all and dwindled, them, maybe it’s just perceived, but I always thought the defender had it worse in LL.

    Switch, I’m not looking for a replacement for ADS.  ADS is still king.  I’m looking for a replacement for LL.  Something that exterminates the extreme value results like LL does, but doesn’t confine you to only slightly marginal battle shifts.  Something, basically, to simulate an ADS game but without the risk of attacking with 40 fighters against 1 infantry and having that infantry actually surviving more then one round.


  • Something that exterminates the extreme value results like LL does, but doesn’t confine you to only slightly marginal battle shifts.

    I already showed you how LL does not have marginal battle shifts. The Baltic attack ranges from all airforce surviving to all airforce dead with 2 German boats alive. Attacking Belo with 3 inf 2 fig ranges from taking with 2 inf to merely clearing it. Attacking Pearl ranges from taking no casualties to losing 2 boats. A transport can still beat a bomber or a battleship easily. 2 inf 1 fig can easily lose to 1 inf. There is plenty of variability, and no such thing as planning 100% in LL. You can kiss your pre-plan goodbye if the Kwang transport beats up your destroyer/carrier, or if the Baltic whoops your butt, etc.


  • @ncscswitch:

    Remove the dice, remove the CORE CONCEPT of the game.

    couldnt put it better myself too :wink:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But you can pre-plan in LL.

    You have 40 infantry, 10 artillery, 19 armor and you want to take out a territory with 10 infantry defending it while keeping the largest possible force in BOTH locations, that means you want to clear it in one round to minimize the damage you take.

    In LL you could send:
    18 infantry + 10 artillery + 4 armor will ALWAYS give you exactly 10 and no more or less then 10 hits in LL when you use them to attack.

    In ADS you may send closer to 20 infantry, 5 artillery, 12 armor to compensate for bad dice.

    In LLADS you could still send 18 I, 10 R, 4 A because you’ll get 9 hits, but it may take another round, so you might send another couple of infantry or just take the risk.

    The Point is, LLADS is inbetween ADS and LL.  LL is obviously a poor method to extrapolate a 15 round game for theory testing because it has very little variation in results and allows you to calculate your defense and offense to the nth degree.  ADS is also a poor method to extrapolate a 15 round game for theory testing because there are the possibilities of battles going insanely good or bad and thus, throwing off the results.  As I used to say “Good Dice Rolls Beat Good Tactics Any Day.”  LLADS is in the middle.  It’s not perfect, but it eliminates the worst failures of both ADS and LL.  There are no insanely good or bad dice rolls, but their’s also more ambiguity to the outcomes of battles then LL.

    Sure, 6 infantry will still kill 1 infantry.  But who’s going to send 6 infantry to attack one infantry, seriously?  3 is about the cap I ever see.  Infantry, Artillery is more common then 3 infantry (and would be rolled ADS style in LLADS.)  2 Infantry is the most common (and would be rolled LL style.)  Assuming your fighters are tied up or dead, that is.


    @Amon:

    @ncscswitch:

    Remove the dice, remove the CORE CONCEPT of the game.

    couldnt put it better myself too :wink:

    This isn’t for actual game play, it’s for testing strategies only and getting a feel for how fault tolerant they are.

    Basically, it’s LL with more dice or ADS with less dice.  Depending on your view.

    I still agree the only way to play a real game is with all the dice.  But a diagnostic game?  Do you really want to test a theory when you lose 6 fighters and a bomber to a battleship and all you do is damage the battleship?


  • @Cmdr:

    I still agree the only way to play a real game is with all the dice.  But a diagnostic game?  Do you really want to test a theory when you lose 6 fighters and a bomber to a battleship and all you do is damage the battleship?

    for strategies and tactics i think its logical to use LL, but still leaving an opportunity for ˝small˝ deviation
    1-2 units, depending on the number of forces


  • quote author=Bean link=topic=10953.msg267419#msg267419 date=1200809099]I already showed you how LL does not have marginal battle shifts.

    Yes you’ve given examples.
    But marginal shift is the fundamental idea of LL right?
    Roll one die per combat cycle.

    Saying certain combats can have more than marginal shift is also like saying the overall game will have more than marginal shift.

    Of course it’ll have more than marginal shift.
    Even if all combat were marginal-shift-type of combat it multiplies itself over and over again in a game.

    @Bean:

    We need a HL option - Half-a** Luck  :roll:

    Half-luck. Yes that was also bought up in the big LL vs ADS thread too!
    We could roll only the odd dice kind of thing.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Isn’t LLADS like half luck?  It’s not Low Luck, it’s not Pure Luck, it’s in the middle between them. :P


  • The Point is, LLADS is inbetween ADS and LL.  LL is obviously a poor method to extrapolate a 15 round game for theory testing because it has very little variation in results and allows you to calculate your defense and offense to the nth degree.

    Wrong, stop here, do not pass go. Your plan changes a lot, this is my 5th or 6th time saying this, there are plenty of divergent battles. The baltic fleet battle for existence, it ranges WIDELY from your entire RAF surviving to them all dying with a German boat surviving. Your plan changes a lot if you send the destroyer to Kwang and the tp wins. Going into Egypt you can lose 1 or 2 units, and that can be all the difference in the world.

    There is quite sufficient variation in results in any number of battles. You can lose 1-3 infantry in W. Russia and/or Belorussia on R1. You can wind up with 1 art 3 arm in Ukraine, or 2 arm in Ukraine. There is plenty of variation to be had.

    If you want more variation, that is your preference, but stop with the fact-ignoring by saying you can plan in LL, and stop saying that LL you can plan to the Nth degree. You can only plan to a certain point, and then you just have to live with things like the tp in kwang beating your dest/car, you just have to live with things like the baltic fleet defeating your RAF, you just have to live with things like 1 inf beating 2 inf 1 fig.

    There are still large battles involving 20 units or more on each side which have ranging between 25% to 44% to 80+% of winning. There is still luck. It is low luck, not no luck. Where there is luck, there is variation. And you have to plan accordingly.

    You can still plan in LLADS, it’s just that you have to withold some units to make it so you can’t overtake a territory.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    That’s the point, Bean.  It’s not predictable.  But it does negate the largest swings in major battles - the battles that the game usually turns on.

    You won’t see a significant change between LL and LLADS in major battles like 40 infantry 30 artillery 20 armor 10 fighters vs 100 infantry 100 armor like you would in LL vs ADS.

    However, yes, the smaller battles will almost all be random, as they should be.  3 fighters and a bomber should not auto kill a battleship.  Probably yes.  Almost certainly even.  But not auto.

    LLADS just applies LL to situations differently to add in a greater, thus more realistic, flexibility then straight LL would.  Any strategy that works in LLADS should work equally well in both LL and ADS.


  • No, you can still strafe precisely in LLADS. You can still send 60 infantry after 11 inf and get away with exactly 10 kills. That is not a valid strategy in ADS. It is false to say that something that works in LLADS should work in ADS, just as false as it is to say that LL strafing is valid in ADS.

    The only solution that I’ve read about so far is the one that IL talked about or the guy from a few months ago posted that you can force the opponent to roll something ADS, that directly keeps the game honest, and directly addresses the main problem that you acknowledged but don’t even begin to fix, 60 inf after 11 inf.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yes, but if you look at it through the prism of reality, the odds of you having exactly 60 infantry to attack and nothing else is almost nil.  First off, it’s hard to get 60 infantry in one place, stacks of infantry usually plateau at about 30-40.  Secondly, you’ll invariably have fighters, artillery, armor and/or bombers in your attack which would thrust you out of the infantry only scenario and then LLADS will come into play making the results much more random then LL but not as random as ADS.

    No one has yet proven that LLADS is a bad method to test strategical theories or that it is worse then the predictability of LL or the weird results you could generated in ADS.


  • Secondly, you’ll invariably have fighters, artillery, armor and/or bombers in your attack which would thrust you out of the infantry only scenario and then LLADS will come into play making the results much more random then LL but not as random as ADS.

    I already showed you with your previous example how one can easily adjust for LLADS; I merely shaved off one artillery and the battle varied from 9-10 inf strafed, 50% of each occurrence.

    And it’s false to say that the fighters/artillery/armor will throw you off since you can easily make it so they come out to multiples of 6 in dice points.

    No one has yet proven that LLADS is a bad method to test strategical theories or that it is worse then the predictability of LL or the weird results you could generated in ADS.

    I have already proven to you multiple times that strafing in LLADS is still too ridiculous compared to ADS, because there is absolutely no way for you to get lucky and overtake the territory if you planned a little bit, while it can easily happen in ADS.

    And even if your ego is saying that no one has yet proven you wrong, then I say no one has yet proven LL to be wrong, either. If it ain’t broke, dont’ fix it. And if it is broke, then fix it right, not half-ass.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, you CAN, but then you are leaving units behind and thus, LLADS is changing your results.

    Sure, if you magically have 600 Infantry, 120 Armor, 60 Fighters and 4 Bombers you can use LL rules, that’s why it’s called LLADS not something else, it’s between LL and ADS.  If you want to hamstring your attacks trying to work out the exact precision of using 6 infantry to attack a defending infantry because you don’t want to roll for an infantry and an artillery, that’s your perogative.

    However, in the small battles that are actually 2 infantry, fighter vs infantry, then the results will have normal swing.  In the insane world where you happen to have the 600 infantry army listed above, well, you’re screwed already, you don’t need ADS or LL or LLADS to tell you that!


  • Nuno:

    You have been in denial of reality since your first post here… thats your issue

    LOL


  • :roll:
    Well Jen, you have over-complicated LL again!
    Until you play it ,
    you shouldn’t try to sway it.
    It really is quite sweet,
    to intice us to compete.
    while the luck is still enough,
    to fear the risky stuff.
    It doesn’t sway the way,
    dicey makes your hair turn grey.
    Now I’m not one to banter,
    one to critisize or cry,
    but dicey is for those classic players
    who only know to live on luck or die.
    Where Low luck is for the new strategists,
    with the cunning of Plantangenists.
    It is the future of dice gaming,
    it is here, and it will stay,
    and become more popular
    every gaming day.
    Embrace the future
    or be confined to an ever deminishing group of old players.
    Change is never easy, especially as we get older.
      See you around the LL games!  :-D

    who calculate and


  • @Imperious:

    Nuno:

    You have been in denial of reality since your first post here… thats your issue

    LOL

    Denial of reality?

    Or the reality of denial?

    Is it my issue?  or my ISSUE?

    Dun dun dun!  double entendres!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Ivan,

    I am trying to improve on LL.  It is my understanding that LL was designed to kill off the extreme results, but it, in turn, created ridiculous results as well because it was TOO extreme.

    LLADS, on the other hand, may also be too extreme, but it is much less extreme then LL and still kills off the extreme results.

    Thus, it is my asertation, that LLADS is a better diagnostic tool for determining if a strategy is sound or not then both ADS and LL.


  • Denial of the actual ‘reality’ as opposed to his bastardized, angry, and false version of it.

    Its the same issue in everyone of his posts…a faulty measure of self deception he cant seem to shake.


  • @Imperious:

    Denial of the actual ‘reality’ as opposed to his bastardized, angry, and false version of it.

    Its the same issue in everyone of his posts…a faulty measure of self deception he cant seem to shake.

    You do realize, Imperious Leader, that it sounds like you’re out to get him.

    Dun dun dun.   :-o

    And you!  And you!  And your little dog, too!  Yeeeeeeheeeheeeheeee!!!

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 8
  • 4
  • 7
  • 42
  • 20
  • 5
  • 22
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

43

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts