Technology

Comparing the randomness to tech option and dice/LL option are so far apart it is insane.

Yes, UK getting a lucky roll with there bb has a large effect on the game after G1, but no where near the effect that UK getting HBs does on turn 1.  Same with G getting a lucky roll in egypt and clearing it without looses, compared to them getting LRA turn 1.

Luck is one thing that doesn’t bother me, and LL does not mean no luck, it means low luck.  Tech though, that can dramatically change the course of a game.  The problem is the game breaking tech, heavys, LRA, paras.  If tech just had fun things like improved art, rockets, radar, etc, then it wouldn’t be that big of a deal.

@Subotai:

Also, LL is less forgiving on mistakes than reg.dice, so how can LL be easier when it is easier in LL to lose b/c of mistakes???

Because LL no tech has less possible results than can happen. And that is a mathematical fact. Less possible results, less possible positions you have to take into account, so is more easy to play. And you cannot have a 100% certain result with official rules: in LL house rule, you know what is the exact amount needed to a desired effect, you have to send that units and no more, no less. It favors scripted strats and I find lame that you can strafe with tanks with 0% risk of being stucked because a too good roll  :-P

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

Also, LL is less forgiving on mistakes than reg.dice, so how can LL be easier when it is easier in LL to lose b/c of mistakes???

Because LL no tech has less possible results than can happen. And that is a mathematical fact. Less possible results, less possible positions you have to take into account, so is more easy to play. And you cannot have a 100% certain result with official rules: in LL house rule, you know what is the exact amount needed to a desired effect, you have to send that units and no more, no less. It favors scripted strats and I find lame that you can strafe with tanks with 0% risk of being stucked because a too good roll  :-P

There is no doubt that LL does reduce the possible results, which has a few interesting effects.  I makes axis turn 1 much more devistating, it makes planes a bit more powerful, makes it easier to defend transports, and makes trading predictable.  But, the difference in results between LL to dice is much lower than tech or no tech.

@Funcioneta:

Because LL no tech has less possible results than can happen. And that is a mathematical fact. Less possible results, less possible positions you have to take into account, so is more easy to play.

Your statement is wrong, b/c it is not easy to play against good players, unless you’re planning to lose.

If your statement was true, it would also be true that in chess it is easy to play and win against grandmasters and world champions. There is currently about 565 chess grandmasters in world.

Good luck in beating them in an easy game with no randomness  :roll:

I can agree the idea that in dice there are more variables so it’s tougher to plan ahead with precision.  In that sense it is “harder”.  But I wouldn’t say adding more variables is an argument for tech bettering the game…dice variables are one thing, tech variables are another.  Dice already adds enough variation that the best player won’t always win.  But dice also swings back and forth.

Tech means that in a typical game, one side or another will gain a built-in advantage.  If one can use a big tech properly, it’s frequently a decisive advantage.

Again, it’s a matter of taste.  I enjoy both dice and low luck.  I guess I feel that reacting to abnormal dice outcomes is part of the skill in Axis and Allies.  But tech is different…the skill involved is knowing how to use the tech properly.  For the reasons outlined previously, I don’t think the variation introduced by tech is worth the risk of an unbalanced, lopsided contest.

What the reg.dice+tech proponents seem to forget is that one side will get more or less hits than the opponent. And the chances for this to happen are much bigger than LL+no-tech.
Now, over 50% of all games are won by the best player, but to get more or less hits than the opponent is the same as getting a unit or cash bid which is much higher than needed to balance the game.

Players can’t control dice rolls, so hits allocated by dice rolls are not controlled by players, and players decisions, it is not controlled at all, it is pure randomness…!

What we all know is that we must use more overkill in both defense and attack in reg.dice, compared to LL. But if both players chose the same level of overkill, same amount of units, and same amount of attack points vs defense points, then battles will not be decided by the players, but by randomness. This means that players decisions have less impact than in a LL setting, b/c in LL setting there will be much less TUV tradings which are not decided by the players.

This again means that in games with high randomness, there will be a lot of TUV which changes sides which is not controlled by the players. And TUV (used efficiently) is the factor which decides which side wins the game.

In some games with high randomness settings, this means that one side will lose much more TUV than the other side, and if both players are fairly experienced and on the same level, this means that factors outside human control will decide game outcomes far often than in games with low randomness game-settings.

As for tech, if one player pays X amount of ipc for tech rolls, and gets HBs, or other power tech, then the other players should also have the option to buy that tech for the same amount of money that the first player used to get the tech.

HBs is the same as buying 1 bomber for 6 ipc, but with the current tech system you can’t make decisions for which techs to buy, actually you can’t buy them at all, you have to win techs in the tech lottery…!

It is a lottery system which decides when techs are achieved, and which ones. Getting a power tech early is exact the same as giving one side a bid which is much higher than needed to balance the game. And yet again, it is not the players decisions which decides if rolling for tech will pay of. Paying $120 in total tech rolls, and getting HBs in the 4th rnd is not worth it.
Same goes for getting a power tech early for little money. All this situations will heavy influence and decide who wins the game, assuming fairly experienced players. And yet again, players decisions have little impact on the outcome of the game.

How it is fun to play with game settings where randomness decides outcomes of games and not players decisions, based on skills and experience?

A lottery game is not a strategy game.

@Subotai:

Your statement is wrong, b/c it is not easy to play against good players, unless you’re planning to lose.

If your statement was true, it would also be true that in chess it is easy to play and win against grandmasters and world champions. There is currently about 565 chess grandmasters in world.

Good luck in beating them in an easy game with no randomness  :roll:

Your comparison of LL and chess continues being wrong: chess is a non-dice game, its variance is based in multiple game positions, not in dices. Chess is difficult to master because has gazillions of possible positions but not due dice. Axis and allies is a dice based game, designed to have a inherent luck factor. That luck factor prevents scripted gamey strategies as ignore Japan and adds variance and difficulty to the game

Add dice to chess and you killed chess. Rest dice to A&A and you killed A&A. Another thing you cannot compare chess and A&A is that in chess a side with less material or even position can hope win the game or at least draw, so there is a point playing to the end. In A&A there is no draw and Larry quit the only timer game had in AAP40, so no sense of continue playing if one side has too big advantage

The main issue for LL, no tech fanboys is they fear dice destroy their scripted strats. A really good player will prevent abisal dice, even for tech, and if decides take the risk and lose he will assume it instead of complaining. You don’t want or know face the risk, OK, play LL, but still LL no tech is easier than advanced game (normal dice with tech) because it has less possible results

A&A has way more possible positions than chess, also in LL and no-tech. This is a mathematical fact. This is why it is not possible to code AI in A&A the same way as in chess, with even the most powerful computers in the world it takes months or years to calculate A&A positions that takes perhaps 5 minutes in chess.

A&A is still diced based even in LL and no-tech. Sometimes games are lost b/c of dice in LL-no-tech, but not as often as in reg.dice and/or tech.

The comparison with chess and A&A is not wrong, even if it is two different games. Sports analysts and lay men often compare different sports with each other, like soccer vs handball. Some factors are similar and other factors are very different.

I don’t fear dice destroying my scripted strats, and I have no scripted strats in any A&A game, I only got some first rnd standard opening moves. But after the very first rnd, every game is very different from each other. And it is not possible to predict dice outcomes in reg.dice or LL, b/c you don’t know what the opponent do, before after he has made his moves. Except for some obvious overall (superficials) strats that almost all players use, I always play according the opponents moves and buys etc.
The problem with reg.dice is not that they destroy my strats, if the opponent gets more hits than I, he will have a TUV advantage, and vice versa.

The only way to prevent bad dice, meaning the opponent gets more TUV b/c of randomness, is to use dice cheats.
There is no other way to prevent bad dice, resulting in one side gets more TUV b/c of dice rolls, not decisions.
This is also a formal mathematical truth. Just ask a mathematician.

Less or more possible results is totally irrelevant compared to how good or bad the opponent is. You don’t play against yourself, you play against an opponent.

It is a formal mathematical truth that the TUV changes between sides, are more random in a reg.dice and/or tech games than in a LL+no-tech game. The variations of dice rolls will result in change of TUV. With less variations, there is less TUV changing hands that is not caused by randomness, but by players decisions.

@gamerman, tech is (increased) randomness…

As for the record, I practically quit playing with tech in Classic. And tech has not been fixed since, apart from AA42, b/c tech is removed :-)))

How hard is it to understand the difference between players decisions/moves and randomness?

Also for the record, I have been playing many games with reg.dice, before moving on to LL. Kinda same “concept” as I played mostly multiplayer before I moved on to playing one side by myself.

The reason for this was that I saw that when I played against players who were at my level of experience, (reasonable decent…?) that dice rolls played such a huge part of deciding the winner and loser that it was no longer fun to play with reg.dice.
This happens mostly in 1vs1 (experienced players) settings, you don’t have to be among the 5 best A&A players in the world to figure out that dice rolls have an enormous impact if both players have close to the same skills and experience level.

And gamerman, you talk like someone who doesn’t know what randomness means…  :roll:

But LL is DICE, it’s just an algorithm which makes dice rolls closer to average than reg.dice.

So A&A with LL is still A&A, b/c there is still dice rolls.

And no, random dice rolls can’t be controlled by player decisions unless you are using dice cheats.

You love tech and randomness, now please move on to your next lottery “competition”…  :roll:

Well, I have smited you once in this thread, but never in the karma support group. I have actually never smited anyone in the karma support group, and I have giving you several + karma, in the support group.

But you might be right about moving on…

I have stated my opinions, and even if I never intended to change people minds about LL, reg.dice and tech/no-tech, any further efforts here will be futile, so I’m moving on… until the next thread about LL/reg.dice/tech…  :evil:

I want to echo what Zhukov has to wonderfully put about tech, and add some other thoughts:
I think if the techs were better balanced, I would like playing with them more.

In AARe (Enhanced), the rules were so designed (and tech tweaked) that even Super Subs were desirable for Germany with certain strategic game plans.  THAT level of ‘even’ tech is not in AA50, and to me, that makes Tech no fun to play with.

With the removal of directed tech (choose what you are trying to research), and techs being immediately in play as opposed to the end of a turn, Tech has increased it’s varible affect on a games outcome.

Some like the wide variable range, others do not.  I think it’s a personal prefence, and the fact that tech is optional is a great way to make the game appeal to all:  Play with it or without it.

……Or incorporate house to make it more to your liking.

Good Gaming!

@Subotai:

I don’t fear dice destroying my scripted strats, and I have no scripted strats in any A&A game, I only got some first rnd standard opening moves. But after the very first rnd, every game is very different from each other. And it is not possible to predict dice outcomes in reg.dice or LL, b/c you don’t know what the opponent do, before after he has made his moves.

No scripted strats, Mr. 100% times KGF fanboy? Come on, you are not going to sell me the motorcicle this time!  :-D

And for not predict results in LL … a great  :lol:! 100 % results are the very basis of LL: you can send 3 inf, 3 tanks vs 3 inf to strafe and retreat in LL with a 100% of success: 2 kills, one casuality, and no other possible result. I’d never do that strafe with normal dices but I’d do much times in LL, and there are much more examples trading territories and, per example, calculating the exact minimal amount of units need to take Australia

Focus on correcting the unbalanced AA50 setup and stop making us losing time with this LL no tech fanmania  :-D

@gamerman01:

There are countless, countless examples of battles all throughout history where the side with the great superiority of forces lost, and sometimes lost very badly.

That reminds me Bailen, 1808: crappy equipped Spanish army toasts overconfident french invaders. Or Midway in WW2!  :lol: