what Hobbes is saying is 100% true. But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia. Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak. Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.
Solution to the LL vs ADS Debate
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :-Dwho 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!
-
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!!!
-
Yes indeed.
When you get a cut it can festor with bacteria and turns into a big problem requiring a doctor.
I’m just the medicine.
If you don’t challenge evil it will prosper. Nuno is basically evil :lol:
-
That is just evil American censorship posting type blah-blah-blah…
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
-
@ncscswitch:
That is just evil American censorship posting type blah-blah-blah…
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
how do your sings move right-left
-
@Crazy:
: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 andinteresting poem…. :wink:
-
Look at the buttons above the smileys. One of them shows moving text.
“Select” the text you want to move, then click the ‘moving text’ button :-)
-
:-D
Thanks Amon-Sul. I dabble in poety. It was late and I didn’t edit this one, so it is pretty rough, but I got my point across I think.
Ohh you shouldn’t have explained moving smiles, now I’m gonna play with em. :roll: -
I like LL. It seems a perfect balance between strategy and luck.
-
ooOoo
oOOOo
OOOOO
ooOoo
ooOoo
Suggested Topics
