Agreed that we’re way off topic and should stop. I already agree with @Imperious-Leader that 2v3 should be its own unique ladder. I just disagree with the idea that it should outright replace the 1v1 ladder so we’ll just leave it at that.

@aardvarkpepper I replied to you but deleted it because I didn’t see @djensen 's post asking everyone to knock it off and agreed with it. There’s no point in getting into a flamewar over dice RNG.

All I will say is that, if you’re that burnt out by bad dice, just take a break from the game dude.

@Imperious-Leader No A&A games exist that allow for more than 5 players? That’s a new one.

A&A has so many factors that make it unrealistic that claiming that it’s a “simulation” and using that as a jumping-off point to claim that you should need to play with more players to “navigate their strengths and weaknesses” is a complete joke. This a strategic-level wargame, and it barely classifies as a wargame at that.

IRL if you play with multiple players in some kind of tournament setting, the good players are going to dictate to the lesser players. I would not trust myself to make any decisions if I were on the same team as people who are actually good at this game (like Black Elk, Cow, etc.) and similarly, I would not trust the weaker players who post their games on youtube to make any major decisions in a game where I was on their team. In either scenario, my success or failure would be entirely anchored to the people I’m on a team with, rather than my own actual skill level.

tl;dr if I wanted to experience the puzzle of a real war I’d go play GW36 lol.

Enemy 3 INF + 3 TANK Vs. 7 INF + 1 FTR in Berlin.

Calc says 7% chance for attacker to win.

A&A Online Says Attacker wins with 1 INF taken as casualty.

Sod off, A&A Online.

@Boston_NWO I mean I get mad about getting diced but I just walk away and cool off rather than throw a fit.

@Imperious-Leader Because team sports are crap. If I wanted to play a team sport I’d go play a sport. I value proving that I’m good at A&A without other people backing me up, hence playing 1v1.

Also, the rulebook for every A&A edition provides player assignments for 2-X players, where X is the total number of countries in the game. So the game is designed just as much for 2 players, 1v1 as it is for 3v2, 5v3, or however many people you can get to sit in your living room for 6+ hours.

side-steps the arguing and ranting and raving about dice and whatnot

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog If you want a good reference point for the “Stabilized Dice” feature you’re planning on implementing I’d recommend looking into the “Low Luck” (“LL” for short) house rule that this community has implemented over the years. In a nutshell, it works in the following way:

Each round, do the following:

1. Add up the Combat Value for all units in a fight on each side (ex. If I attack with 2 INF/1 ART/1 TANK against 4 INF, then the attacker’s “Combat Value” is 8 (1 (the unpaired INF) + 2 (the paired INF) + 2 (the ART) + 3 (the TANK) = 8 ) and the defender’s “Combat Value” is also 8 (2 (the INFs) * 4 = 8).

2. Divide the “Combat Value” of each side by 6 and note the remainder (Attacker would be 8/6 = 1 Remainder 2, Defender would be 6/6 = 1 Remainder 0).

3. The number you got when dividing the Combat Value by 6 is how many hits you score as a baseline.

4. For the remainder, roll a D6 and compare it to the remainder. If you rolled less than the remainder, you get one extra hit on top of the value you got in step “#3” above.

5. Both sides remove casualties, attack has the option to retreat (just like in regular A&A).

So basically, each side can get a rough estimate going in of exactly how a battle will play out. This makes the game more chess-like than normal A&A (where big swingy battles can single-handedly decide the outcome of the game), which has its own perks/flaws (the game’s a lot more predictable this way, for better or for worse).

I’d hesitate on having any mode with this setting replace the core “ranked” ladder though, as it’d be a good way to get purists mad. However, a separate ladder for low-luck may appeal to people who are upset by the dice (not naming any names, but you’ve been putting up with us long enough to get the idea).

Thanks as always for popping your head in here and taking the abuse you take. I don’t envy you.

EDIT: Minor cleanup of post structure.

@Imperious-Leader It’s ranked, thus the 1-on-1 requirement. In a team game if my partners suck and I lose because of it then why should I be penalized with a loss on my record?

That being said, a separate ladder for team games would be a nice addition to what’s already in place. Ideally you’d be required to form a pre-made team with you and 1 (Axis) or 2 (Allies) friends to participate so you’re not stuck with random teammates.

@Eqqman I’m actually happy there’s no dialogue in ranked because I’d have some choice words for some of my opponents after getting diced on critical battles and losing a completely-won game because of it.

That, and the last thing anyone would need is people going “haha noob” after every move you make.

NOTE: I didn’t bother addressing your concerns about Japan/the Pacific because, as you said, we’d just be getting ourselves bogged down into an endless discussion on the entirety of AA50, which is way outside the original scope of this thread, which was defending Egypt as UK in the 41 Scenario (I already kind of dragged us out of it by harping on NOs, so sorry about that).