No Luck Revised v. 0.1

[Jennifer]

It just seems like I always have the worst luck with online dice rollers, Switch.  I guess it’s payback for having 80% efficiency with attacking infantry and AA Guns in real time play (where i have physical possession of the dice!  I’ll throw any number I want 4/5 times.  So that’s kinda LL, right?  I know I can probably take out 5 tanks with 5 infantry cause on R1 I’ll throw 4 '1’s and he’ll probably only throw 2-3 hits.  R2 I can throw at least 1 hit and he can throw 1 hit. :)  Using the same dice.)

But to be honest, I think of the 100s of SBRs I’ve done with online rollers it works out too (and I have the actual tally sheet from 2004-08-12 on) approximately 81 Successful Strategic Bombing Runs, 507 Bombers Shot Down.

That’s roughly 15-16% of the time I actually survive the Anti-Aircraft fire on SBR runs.  According to the laws of statistics, shouldn’t those two numbers be reversed?  Shouldn’t I only be getting shot down 1 out of 6 attempts over the long haul, not 5 out of 6 attempts?  (Of course, my numbers are biased in so much as they do not include results pre-dating 2004 and they do not include AA fire against fighters and bombers attacking provinces for conquest, but only for SBR runs.)

I think the codes need to be re-written so that you first check for a result of ‘6’ then work your way down to a ‘1’ instead of the other way.  The results of ‘1’ are way to prevalent on DAAK.  FROODs seem about right, I’ve used him on two combat rounds so far and they seemed about average.  The inhouse dice roll slightly on the good side for me , but not biased one way or the other as far as I can tell.  Flames I’ve only used once, and so far isn’t too dramatically stacked against me.

So yea, I’d say DAAK either has a very flawed program, or they have a line of code that is triggered only when I log into my account and use the server that results in all '6’s for me and all '1’s for my enemy. :)  Or so it seems.

Back to the topic on hand:

There is a lot to be said for the strategic positions of LL and NL.  Just as you can almost always win a battle where you have 60% to win, you also don’t have an almost 50/50 shot of a 40% to win chance of your defenders winning because of one bad throw of the dice for the attacker.  It keeps you more honest.  And in miniscule battles, the odds of fluctuation of results is identical in LL as in ADS.  1 Defending infantry has a 33% chance to score a hit in both systems.

[newpaintbrush]

Yep.

Skill’s required for backgammon too.  You just have to be able to work with what you get.

–

I take exception to this comment:

"If you dont like LL and want to be dependant on the dice that is your choice but jenny and some others preferr to be dependant on strategy only and not on the dice. "

Dealing with bad dice and exploiting good dice is a PART of a good strategy.  I don’t know where this whole mentality that low-luck is the only game for serious strategists arose, but it’s just not correct at all.

[Jennifer]

Luck defies strategy though.  Be definition alone, if not from practice.

If you put one infantry in there hoping that he will defeat an entire Japanese wave of 14 infantry, 3 tanks and 6 fighters I’d wager you are a very poor strategist….regardless how the dice come out.

[Guest]

That last post is VERY true.

But I will go ahead and lose that ONE game out of 100,000 where that would actually happen.

I have has some REALLY bad series of dice in a number of games.  I mean the 2-3 turns of horrendous dice that Jen is complaining about.  You know somethign, the last game that I got really dice slammed for 3 straight turns, I won the game.  Why?  because I outplayed my opponent and was able to make the dice WORK for me, good or bad.

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

That last post is VERY true.

But I will go ahead and lose that ONE game out of 100,000 where that would actually happen.

I have has some REALLY bad series of dice in a number of games.  I mean the 2-3 turns of horrendous dice that Jen is complaining about.  You know somethign, the last game that I got really dice slammed for 3 straight turns, I won the game.  Why?  because I outplayed my opponent and was able to make the dice WORK for me, good or bad.

Yea, I done that once or twice too, it’s called turtling and praying for that one round of combat he gets atrocious dice and crucifying him for it!

[Guest]

No it is called playing to advantage.  Slight shift of focus to go after a weaker spot, reducing your short-term expectations and aiming at a longer term for reaching goals, etc.

In short, it is called being able to think and adjust strats on the fly.

And THAT was always my main argument against LL.  People like Agent Smith who has spent a couple months with a SIM to work out the one best way to do things are SCREWED when faced with the unknown.  The very first time they lose more units than expected, their entire remainign battle plan is TOAST.  Then, you just out think them, instead of trying to out-sim them.

[Jennifer]

Yea.  I guess what we really need is a way to shave off those results which exceed 3 standard deviations while not allowing for auto wins just because you have 3 infantry attacking 1 infantry.

So no longer would you have 1 guy fending off the entire Russian army complete with the Russian airforce and armored divisions because he’s got unlimited bullets, found the one position no one can hit him at and figured out the entire Red armed services received no training and ahave no common sense to get out of the range of fire….But you’d still allow for 5 infantry to take out 10 infantry, 3 tanks with good dice.

Wonder how we can do that?

[newpaintbrush]

@Jennifer:

Yea.  I guess what we really need is a way to shave off those results which exceed 3 standard deviations while not allowing for auto wins just because you have 3 infantry attacking 1 infantry.

So no longer would you have 1 guy fending off the entire Russian army complete with the Russian airforce and armored divisions because he’s got unlimited bullets, found the one position no one can hit him at and figured out the entire Red armed services received no training and ahave no common sense to get out of the range of fire….But you’d still allow for 5 infantry to take out 10 infantry, 3 tanks with good dice.

Wonder how we can do that?

Something like add up all the hit value and divide by 5 instead of 6, then roll the appropriate dice to count casualties.

Like - in LowLuck if you have 33 attack value, that’s 5 auto hits and 1/2 chance of a sixth.
For this, you divide by 5, so you roll six dice and get a hit on a 1-5 on each of those.  You’d roll a seventh dice and get a hit on 1-3.

[Guest]

Truth be told though… those rare battles are exactly that… RARE.

the 1 INF holding off 12 INF is so rare I have NEVER SEEN IT in one of my games… Classic or Revised.

Deal with the dice, and have fun GAMING!  :-)

[Jennifer]

Yea, they are rare, but they still exist.  And I’m trying to think of a way to make it fair and eliminate those situation but still leave it be a crap shoot if 2 attacking infantry will beat 1 defending infantry.

Maybe make a calculator givve you the % chance of X number of hits per unit type (Inf/Art being a seperate classification) and roll percentile dice to find out where on the chart you land.

You’d still have the chance of 1 infantry defending against 12, but the odds would be so diminished that it would probably be once in every 1000 years of games instead of

Currently 12 Inf attacking 1 Inf has 2 Guarenteed hits in LL and NL.  In ADS they have a 99.97% chance of winning, giving that one infantry 3 chances in 1000 games to obliterate his opponents and, even if he dies, still maintaining control of the land.

[Guest]

The vageries of war…

“Point Luck” off Midway… not just a place selected that proved to be miracle positioning against an unknown foe, but the epitomy of war, and certainly war GAMING.

[Jennifer]

Yea, but this is a GAME, not reality.  We’re not talking about telling the 3rd ID to surrender if they’re confronted with 12 IDs attacking them, IRL.  We’re trying to remove ridiculous results from a game so that strategy can prevail, not luck.

You want a game of pure luck, play yahtzee.

[Guest]

It is not a game of pure luck, it is a game with a luck element of a minimal nature.

It is truly rare that luck lasts an entire game.  And being able to counter good rolls, or deal with bad ones, is the mark of a skilled player.

Otherwise, you end up like Agent Smith… master of the best resutls that a SIM can spit out, with the moves and counters memorized, and each game being identical.

[Jennifer]

Yea, but I’m trying to only kill off the extreme results, not formulate the game into a game of Checkers or tictactoe.

Basically, I’m trying to invent a better widget.

[Guest]

Just write off that 1 in 1000 game.  That is the easiest way to deal with Berlin falling to 1 UK INF  :evil:

[Natasin]

What have I started! :)

There is a place and time for all types of rules.  The dice give A&A that extra mysterious element.  To limit that amount of luck would change the game similiar to chess, but still hold a large amount of strategy.  I am not fond of luck type situations and introduced these proposed variants as a simplified method to rid the game of luck, if the players want it that way.

Jen, keep in mind that you want to stay away from charts as much as possible.  Rules need to be as simple as possible to be effective.  “taking a 10” rule would allow people to take the averages in some situations.  Even the full blown No Luck variant is somewhat too complicated, but easy enough with practice.  I would like to see a way to kill off extreme luck, but LL might be the best choice.

Switch, it is easy to call A&A simply a game, and you are completely correct.  Unfortunately, some of us poor unfortunate souls have a certain disdain for luck.  We realish the competition and do not mind being beaten by good strategy, but hate losing to luck.  Over time, we learn to cut our losses and remember that not every game will be so unlucky.  We also learn to not throw our chances to luck.  As a matter of course, different players have different tolerarances to luck.

The major point of this thread is to think of a method that will be satisfying to a multitude of people without changing the game.  Luck is an important aspect of war to vary the game.  I like no luck only due to trying to test out new strategies that would not be possible overwise.  Thanks for the interesting dialogue.

[Guest]

The thing is, you almost NEVER lose to luck.

The mark of a good player is one that can deal with dice.  And blaming dice on a loss is more likely the result of bad strat than of actual bad dice.

I have won too many “bad dice” games to blame the dice for my failures.

[Natasin]

Switch, you’re completely correct.  A good player can stack the luck in their favor fairly well.  A good player is not going to lose that many games in the long run.  My roommate relies a lot on luck and loses most of the time.  I know it for truth, but still dislike luck.  Though I slightly disagree about dice not losing a player the game.  There are important battles that dice can sway that may lose a player the game.  As a general rule, that does not always happen very much.  Again, over 100 games, it will not happen much at all.  Strategy is the most important, but any good strategy can be destroyed by luck.  In a pickup game it may not be important, but tournament play is far more unforgiving of bad luck.  Luck always depends on the opponent.

[Guest]

To be honest, the worst luck I have had in Tournament play is selecting a partner that decided to not complete the Tournament.

You are FAR more likely to run into trouble with partners who do not continue a game (for whatever reason), or a time default, or other real world issue that costs you a game, than you are to losing JUST because of bad luck.

[Jennifer]

An interesting way I just played a game was you add up all your attack strength and all your defense strength then roll percentile dice.  If you happen to have 102 attack, then you get 1 hit and roll percentile to see if you get a second hit.

It sure made the game long and it completely changed everyone’s tactics!!!  You still had a chance of 1 guy fighting off 99 attacking infantry, but there was absolutely no way 100 attacking infantry could end up with less then 99 survivors! :)

I’m not advocating this, I’d probably never play it again…something about large battles taking an hour and 3 beers to complete…but it was fun!