Well, as one of the “whiners”… I did get a 1 in 10,000 string of bad dice that drew a LOT of attention a while back…
Also, I proved in my ONLY Low Luck game that I have ever played (and the only one I will ever play), that you can still get massively dice fracked in LL. Happened on G1… about the worst possible time for it.
It is my belief that a good strategy can overcome unfortunate odds. A common rebuttle would be, “any one can get screwed in a single battle, especially a big battle.”
All too true, which is why I try to do everything I can to avoid large battles.
Do not let the game come down to dice, it gives your opponent odds they should not ordinarily have.
In conclusion, this is why I believe good players can overcome unfortunate dice.
Oh, I am also part of the school of thought that believes, “there are such things as bad days”
We share the same belief, but still end up trying to avoid different things Octo. You try to avoid large battles, while I try to avoid the small battles for the same reason. I hate sending my bomber out to take 1 or 2 lonely transports. And I hate sending a BB to take a lonely destroyer. In both cases you are favorite with great odds, but if you should fail(and I do more than 50% of the time…) it can cost you the game.
I don’t think you will find me engaging in combats like that, unless there are greater implications to the combat.
bad rolls even out good ones. it’s part of the game.luck and chance play a part in real conflict. sometimes the dice are hot and sometimes they are cool.
thank you flush!
i played a game today on the board and lost because of dice. 15 dice a two or less and not one hit! but there where plenty of of “iffy” battles i won because of dice.
Let me guess, when you lose it is because of bad dice, but when you win it is because of good strategy.
Well, I am about to close out my last game ever of Classic.
That Low Luck crap has soured me on the game COMPLETLY…
AA Immune Bombers… Talk about an Allied advantage…
Forget bad dice (which STILL happen even in that LL crap… I had a battle where the Sim did not even recognize a possibility for enemy survival turn into defeat on G1). In terms of Classic, I have had it.
Give me Revised. Give me VARIABLES. Give me more territories. Give me more options for strats. Give me something other than INF builds for Germany until it dies…
I’m with you Switch.
I don’t get why people keep playing Classic when you can play Revised. It’s like whacking away at your typewriter when you could be using a pentium pro and a printer with frikkin laserbeams!
Well i like ADS dices, but as some people know i reserve the right to complain (withing reasons). And it´s not to say other people didn´t win over me by skill, becuse i had “bad luck”, becuse luck usually swings both ways.
The complaining part is kind of a ritual, where you can get your anger out, and then collect yourself and try to win the game (as i nearly did vs Mojo).
I think one of the things that keeps people playing the original is the indignation that nothing could possibly be better than their all-time favorite game- one in which they’ve invested hundreds of hours playing and becoming proficient with. A&AR levelled the playing field, so all the A&A experts had to come up with new strats and grapple with not being the best anymore. I’ve looked at a couple of other sites- especially related to Classic, and as the new game was slowly being revealed a few years ago 98% of the people who played Classic sounded like they’d just been punched in the stomach. The great A&A temple was crumbling, and a false idol was being thrust upon them.
I played alot of Classic, starting as a young pup, and Revised is much better once you accept the differences.
Just an opinion.
As for bids, well, I think that if your going to play the underdog you should expect a harder time than if you pick the favorite. Nothing is more satisfying than kicking butt as the Axis with no bid.
Earlier you made it sound like you didn’t think a bid was needed to make the game even. Now you paint the Axis as the underdog with no bid. Which is it?
To summarize my view:
The Axis CAN win with no bid, but will lose more often than win without a bid. One of my goals for a “perfect game” would be to have the two sides be totally even in their chances of winning before the start of play. So in that sense, AA:R with no bid is a good game. AA:R with an axis bid is closer to a perfect game.
But if the need for an even 50/50 shot at winning is not important to you, if you like playing as an underdog from time to time, then I can see why you would be against a bid.
thanks for pointing out the contradiction. I was comming from the common viewpoint of the boards. In wargames I like to play the part of the historcal loser (thus the reason I called the Axis the underdog). Its not that I think that the axis can’t win a significant number of games, but that they lost in history. The thrill for me is making the game go in a way that was contrary to the result of the historical event. To me a bid is an insult, since what you are saying is that I am not good enough to win without being given an advantage that is not included in the OM. I also tend to be a stickler for the rules that come with any game. I HATE house rules in Monopoly, for instance.
octo , i don’t blame anyone/anything when i lose.
the axis and allies are both “geared up” for revised. the axis are much better equiped in the new game. GER is disgustingly strong!
We never played w/bids. I would take it, if presented. We use a random draw to decide who is who.
To me a bid is an insult, since what you are saying is that I am not good enough to win without being given an advantage that is not included in the OM. I also tend to be a stickler for the rules that come with any game. I HATE house rules in Monopoly, for instance.
Do you consider it an insult to play with a bid in Classic A&A? Because I think everyone can agree that Classic is pretty unwinnable by the Axis wthout a bid and/or other house rules like Russia Restricted. Once players know what they are doing that is.
Now Revised is nowhere near as bad, and is certainly quite playable without a bid. Among beginning players the Axis may have an edge even w/o a bid since the Allies need a lot more coordination to be successful. For the same reason a bid isn’t needed nearly as much, if at all, in a five person game. Unless the three allied players are in complete agreement on strategy.
I think alot of our difference of opinion on this stems from your stance on house rules in general. I have no issue with house rules that improve gameplay or game balance. Change just for the sake of change I don’t like. Which is why I hate the changes LHTR made to the way planes are placed on new ACs. Though I like the LHTR otherwise.
A couple of friends recently played A&A.
One of them was a newbie and the other one has played revised 3 times.
The first played Allies, the latter played Axis.
Since Allies have a great advantage in A&A without a bid for the Axis, but with the fact that the player for the Allies was a newbie…
they played without a bid!
Guess who won?
the Allies!
well, I have to say, the person who did play A&AR before can use some good strategies (you can not say he is a pro in the game yet)
but still!!! If even a newbie can win as Allies in A&A - even without a bid?
:-o
then the game MUST be pretty unbalanced.
and yes: both got very good dice sometimes, but very bad dice as well!
To me a bid is an insult, since what you are saying is that I am not good enough to win without being given an advantage that is not included in the OM. I also tend to be a stickler for the rules that come with any game. I HATE house rules in Monopoly, for instance.
Do you consider it an insult to play with a bid in Classic A&A? Because I think everyone can agree that Classic is pretty unwinnable by the Axis wthout a bid and/or other house rules like Russia Restricted. Once players know what they are doing that is.
Now Revised is nowhere near as bad, and is certainly quite playable without a bid. Among beginning players the Axis may have an edge even w/o a bid since the Allies need a lot more coordination to be successful. For the same reason a bid isn’t needed nearly as much, if at all, in a five person game. Unless the three allied players are in complete agreement on strategy.
I think alot of our difference of opinion on this stems from your stance on house rules in general.  I have no issue with house rules that improve gameplay or game balance. Change just for the sake of change I don’t like. Which is why I hate the changes LHTR made to the way planes are placed on new ACs. Though I like the LHTR otherwise.
I didn’t play classic much, and I can agree that the game was mostly unwinable by the axis (but I did do it once with out a bid). I probally would have played with a bid if I had known that people do that, but I hadn’t discovered that house rule yet, and we didn’t think of it on our own. In short, yeah, its not an insult in classic. That game was just out of balance.
You are right about house rules. I guess I’m just a pureist when it comes to board games. I love them and they are my major hobbie besides surfing, so I like to do them right.
Yeah I play with the OM. I have yet to run into any real problems with it. Perhaps some realism rules and some “this isn’t very historicaly accurate” rules, but nothing that makes the game unplayable.
I would have said I always play with the OM…
but, that’s not true!
we play A&AR without techs…
and actually, if you come to think of it… that’s a house rule as well! (to play WITHOUT them)…
so, triforce? do you play with or without techs?
