Luck goes both ways. Â If you give up because things don’t go perfectly your way in round 1, that’s going to be an awfully short game every time, especially if your opponent feels the same way. Â One of you is likely to feel that their battles were less than optimum in round 1…
So then you agree luck is a deciding factor. Unless luck swings heavily the other way, and soon, it will be a losing game. Given average results for the remainder of the game Germany will lose.
But you’re right, I am a pessimistic(realistic) person. I’ve given up games early that have no hope of getting back on track. I will keep playing for a while hoping for just those lucky breaks, but when they fail to appear why waste time on “tactics” you know can’t work.
90% luck, 10% skill.
@Sankt:
Luck goes both ways. Â If you give up because things don’t go perfectly your way in round 1, that’s going to be an awfully short game every time, especially if your opponent feels the same way. Â One of you is likely to feel that their battles were less than optimum in round 1…
So then you agree luck is a deciding factor.
90% luck, 10% skill.
Sure, ANY game that involves dice affecting the outcome has an element of luck (or more realistically speaking, results outside 2 standard deviations)
I do NOT agree it’s 90% luck though. Among players of even skill/experience level (is that even possible?), I would say perhaps 60% luck, 40% skill.
You need to properly:
1). Anticipate disaster: CONTINGENCIES! Don’t leave your air force out to dry if the 4% outcome occurs.
2). Alter your game plan to react to the dice: Be FLEXIBLE and think a bit out of the box when the dice do not cooperate.
This works BOTH ways: taking advantage of the good dice as well as covering the bad dice.
You are admittedly relatively new to the game, so have some faith in the veterans of this game. Dice b*ing is common in this game… and I admit there are times when no matter what you do, the dice will not let you win.
If this invariability is still too much for you to deal (with your chess background), I would suggest you either play Low Luck games or some other variant that relies more on strategy rather than dice roll…
Like A&ARe (Enhanced). See: http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=15339 if interested.
my strategies revolve around me ALWAYS rolling below average, so i am never suprised when it occurs (which is often :-P) and if i do roll above average i am in a commanding position :mrgreen:
we have one guy in our group who always expects to roll BETTER than average, you can guess who usually wins/loses :wink:
So then you agree luck is a deciding factor.
No, not at all. Â I agree that luck is a factor, yes. Â Not the deciding factor by a long-shot. Â Advanced players at this game will beat inexperienced players (players familiar with all the rules and basic strategies) every time. Â This is not because they are luckier or not, but because they are better at adapting strategies to the luck they get.
Don’t get me wrong - I too have found myself staring in horror at three out of three bombers exploding suddenly over the skies of Berlin before they had a chance to drop their payloads. Â But I have also cheered when my single unescorted transport knocked down two fighters and lived to continue service. Â Luck is a big part of the emotional heart of the game. Â I wouldn’t ever play low-luck or no-luck, but that’s just me.
And you can’t ever say “given average results for the remainder of the game”. Â There is no such thing. Â Averages are an artificial construction used to help make predictions, that’s it. Â Let’s say we are flipping four coins. Â The average result of the series, if you were to run 1000 series (the accepted minimum standard for generating statistical averages) will be two heads, two tails. Â That’s easy enough to calculate. Â Now try it. Â There is actually only a 37.5% chance that you will get two heads and two tails. Â (6 permutations out of 16 possibilities.) You are almost twice as likely to get a result that defies the predicted average, than the predicted average itself.
And this is in a simple game with only four coins with two states each. Â Now apply it to a complex game with hundreds or thousands of dice rolls, with six states each. Â All of a sudden, the “average” result becomes an entirely impossible thing to actually achieve. Â It is good as a guideline for determining general strategy, but we are not playing 1000 games and determining the average. Â We are playing one game. Â We have the entire range of possible outcomes to potentially occur.
There will always be variations in any game of any complexity that deviate from the projected average. Â It is the task of the player to manage the non-luck-related aspects at his command in order to benefit more, or suffer less, from the impacts of that variety.
Adaptibility, flexibility, fluidity. Â This stuff wins wars, my friend!
~Josh
@Sankt:
@Sankt:
Your assessments are correct. I would argue it’s 90% luck and 10% skill, unless players are on completely different skill levels.
Totally disagree. Part of the skill of this game is devising a strategy that will still win you games despite bad luck. At some point, too much bad luck cannot be overcome. But too many people are quick to blame bad dice when they lose, rather than bad strategy.
Squirecam
It’s G1. You send 3 figs, 1 sub against the lone UK BB and attack Egypt with a number of units(varies depending on bid etc.). Only 1 of your figs hit, UK BB hits. Second round it is destroyed but scores another hit. Germany down 1 fig. Egypt battle goes sour, cleared but in UK hands. Or you can sacrifice a fig to take the territory. Both are considered good strategy, both have a good risk to fail. If either one or both fails do you really think you are going to win over a skilled opponent? Hate to break it to you, you’re going to lose.
It’s still G1. I’ve had much worse done to me, against skilled tournament opponents, and still won.
Perhaps you should not give up so easily.
I don’t think luck is the deciding factor or even plays that big of a roll.
I tend to follow this philosophy (I think it was Agent who mentioned it to me), That no matter what you are going to do you will lose 20-25% due to dice, your goal should be to maximize the 75-80% of the games you can win.
This is why the best players in most clubs tend to have about 70-80% win ratios. Given enough games I don’t think there are too many 90% winners out there. Yes here and there maybe, but overall, if you win ~75% (even 70%+) of your games you’re pretty darn good NOT lucky.
The key is to recognize that you simply aren’t going to win every game, you certainly try to, but if you lose the 4 ftr, 1 sub vs. bb battle, hey you lost, but that doesn’t make the attack a bad move. And given enough games you are going to win that battle waaaay more than you’ll lose it.
Personally, this is where I like LowLuck, as I’ve used it to develop strats that I know work consistantly and will work in ADS, but a good ADS strat will not necessarily work in LL.
I don’t play a lot of LL anymore (esp since moving to Revised), but have used it as a vital learning tool.
So, if I had to put numbers on it, I’d say the game is 80% skill and 20% luck (or dice).
If you have two players of equal skill, the game is mostly luck. But a novice player won’t beat an expert player with dice alone - the expert player will avoid situations where he is vulnerable to the result of a few bad dice. For instance, he won’t leave Germany under-defended esp. with the Jap bomber parked there (fond memory for DarthMaximus I’m sure - he blowed me up good that time)
@froodster:
If you have two players of equal skill, the game is mostly luck.
No, its not. Although you never have 2 people of exactly equal skill, you can have 2 really good players. It is the player who is better at taking advantage of good dice and minimizing losses from bad dice that will win most of the games.
Some of the “skill” in this game is developing a strategy to deal with the dice. For some reason, many people cannot deal with the fact they are not as good. They want excuses as to why they lost. Which is why sports fans blame a “ref” rather than their teams fumble or bad plan. Same that people blame bad dice rather than bad strategy.
Take 2 equal players, only one is agressive and one conservative. The agressive player does fine when dice are in his favor. He can also “get lucky” with a big risky attack. But by being risky, he constantly gives his opponent a chance for the dice to turn around.
The conservative playe, OTHO, once he gets an edge, will do everything possibe to prevent the dice from switching back. Less risky attacks than his opponent.
They are both good players. But the better dice manager will win most of these matchups.
Equal skill means equal skill at managing the dice.
Assume I played myself. Both sides played by virtually identical players. Or better yet, the computer plays itself. The winner will be determined purely by luck, as there is no other difference between the players.
Of course, the game may not be perfectly balanced, or the AI’s strategy may be more suited to one side or the other.
Assume two players with 95% win records. When they play each other, it’s hard to say who will win - it will mostly depend on luck, and they can expect to win/lose 50% of the games they play against each other.
You are admittedly relatively new to the game, so have some faith in the veterans of this game. Dice b*ing is common in this game… and I admit there are times when no matter what you do, the dice will not let you win.
If this invariability is still too much for you to deal (with your chess background), I would suggest you either play Low Luck games or some other variant that relies more on strategy rather than dice roll…
Haha, you are wonderfully arrogant! I know I’m relatively new to the game, but winning that doubles tournament has got to count for something? And getting to the bronze final in last year’s singles? (Though I withdrew prior to the match)
Regretfully I have no chess background and I dislike LowLuck in its current form. Something called MediumLuck or something would be more my thing, but I’m settled with luck being a big part of the game. 90% to be precise! :-D
@froodster:
Equal skill means equal skill at managing the dice.
Assume I played myself. Both sides played by virtually identical players. Or better yet, the computer plays itself. The winner will be determined purely by luck, as there is no other difference between the players.
If “you” played “yourself”, eventually one of you will make a tactical/strategic mistake. Mistakes happen in every game. [Dont tell me you never make a mistake] You may put too few pieces in a territory to block, or have some units out of position, or fail to take a key territory.
Therefore, the “other you” will take advantage of this mistake.
When you throw two INT and go 3/15 on third down, it was not a referee call that lost the game. It was “you”.
Similarly, when you make tactical mistake, and your opponent capitalizes, it was “you”.
As for a “computer”, the Axis & Allies AI has always been piss poor. So that argument fails too. If ever a great AI is developed (wont ever happen in my lifetime) let me know.
No, its not. Although you never have 2 people of exactly equal skill, you can have 2 really good players. It is the player who is better at taking advantage of good dice and minimizing losses from bad dice that will win most of the games.
Some of the “skill” in this game is developing a strategy to deal with the dice. For some reason, many people cannot deal with the fact they are not as good. They want excuses as to why they lost. Which is why sports fans blame a “ref” rather than their teams fumble or bad plan. Same that people blame bad dice rather than bad strategy.
Take 2 equal players, only one is agressive and one conservative. The agressive player does fine when dice are in his favor. He can also “get lucky” with a big risky attack. But by being risky, he constantly gives his opponent a chance for the dice to turn around.
The conservative playe, OTHO, once he gets an edge, will do everything possibe to prevent the dice from switching back. Less risky attacks than his opponent.
They are both good players. But the better dice manager will win most of these matchups.
So in your mind the conservative player is the better dice handler? You are mistaken, in order to win the most games you need to play the odds where available considering the pay-offs. Some territories are worth more than others. That shifts throughout the game and also by what units are defending the territory. Egypt is a key area in the early rounds but may often lose its importance later on.
You see it as the losers blame the dice instead of their(presumed) bad tactics. It goes the other way too, the winner thinks he has a great strat and is a better player than his opponent when in fact he got lucky. I think most of the games are like this, a little shift in the luck and the game could have gone the other way. Hence luck playing a major role. And don’t get yourselves so worked up guys, I never said that was necessarily a bad thing. I agree with Craig above, a static game with an “über strategy” wouldn’t be very satisfying. The only thing I dislike are those rounds 1 and 2 dice fracks as they just leave you no room whatsoever to maneuver. (yeah, yeah, some of you are just so uber good you work around it anyway. I don’t buy it.)
And as you mention, this conservative player will be able to avoid mosts risks once he gets an advantage giving him a great chance of winning the game. You must take those early risks(attack Ukraine for instance or that lone uk BB) or you will never get that advantage. If you just roll with battles with 90% certainty you will not get that great win percentage of 80%. It’s definitely a strategy game, but between “equally skilled opponents” luck is the deciding factor by as much as 90%.
@Sankt:
So in your mind the conservative player is the better dice handler? You are mistaken, in order to win the most games you need to play the odds where available considering the pay-offs. Some territories are worth more than others. That shifts throughout the game and also by what units are defending the territory. Egypt is a key area in the early rounds but may often lose its importance later on.
That is NOT what I said. I said the better dice handler would win. An agressive player can use a good run of dice just like a conservative player can recover better from a bad run. It could be either of the 2. But between them, that person will win most games.
You see it as the losers blame the dice instead of their(presumed) bad tactics. It goes the other way too, the winner thinks he has a great strat and is a better player than his opponent when in fact he got lucky. I think most of the games are like this, a little shift in the luck and the game could have gone the other way.
Rarely have I seen this at tournaments. Players can have a close game, but mostly one party is clearly ahead.
The only thing I dislike are those rounds 1 and 2 dice fracks as they just leave you no room whatsoever to maneuver. (yeah, yeah, some of you are just so uber good you work around it anyway. I don’t buy it.)
I could care less whether you “buy” it. It happens. From personal experience, an Origins opponent took Ukraine with USSR, AFTER I added 2 inf as a bid, with NO GERMAN HITS. The German counter into Ukraine was REPULSED. Egypt was empty and Germany had no fleet due to the forced UKR counter attack.
I won that game. Not because the dice magically turned, but because I was better. Sorry that you quit instead of taking the opportunity to treat it as a challenge, “how well can I do given these conditions”.
And as you mention, this conservative player will be able to avoid mosts risks once he gets an advantage giving him a great chance of winning the game.
I agree once a conservative player has a lead, he has an advantage.
You must take those early risks(attack Ukraine for instance or that lone uk BB) or you will never get that advantage. If you just roll with battles with 90% certainty you will not get that great win percentage of 80%. It’s definitely a strategy game, but between “equally skilled opponents” luck is the deciding factor by as much as 90%.
Disagree. Attacking UKR, (especially with a bid, but even without) is a risky move. You do so, you run the risk of losing or the dice going badly. However, had you moved all your troops into west russia, you have an overwhelming chance to kill the Germans in ONE ROUND, and REDUCE the hits coming back at you.
I say that the WR only strategy is better. Therefore, why people who use it probably win more than you do.
Similarly, attacking the BB wth 3 Fighters + sub is MUCH different than attacking with the BB+trans+sub+fighters and taking Gibraltar. Again, a better strategy.
@froodster:
Equal skill means equal skill at managing the dice.
Assume I played myself. Both sides played by virtually identical players. Or better yet, the computer plays itself. The winner will be determined purely by luck, as there is no other difference between the players.
If “you” played “yourself”, eventually one of you will make a tactical/strategic mistake. Mistakes happen in every game. [Dont tell me you never make a mistake] You may put too few pieces in a territory to block, or have some units out of position, or fail to take a key territory.
Therefore, the “other you” will take advantage of this mistake.
So am I a better player or a worse player than I am when that happens? I guess you could call it “luck” that your opponent makes a mistake.
As for a “computer”, the Axis & Allies AI has always been piss poor. So that argument fails too. If ever a great AI is developed (wont ever happen in my lifetime) let me know.
How does that argument fail? Note that in my initial post I said players of equal skill, not equal brilliant skill. You’re not saying that the Weak AI for UK is weaker than the Weak AI for Japan, are you? It’s the same AI, therefore equal skill (except of course that the AI may be more adapted to one country)
By definition, when all else is equal, the only factor left is luck.
I still maintain that when you have two equally matched opponents, it’s a coin toss which of them will win. Whether that is which one will make a mistake first or which one will have bad dice, it’s still luck. You can be a good player and still make a mistake. If you consistently make mistakes though, you are a bad player.
And if a player who constantly makes mistakes faces a player who almost never makes mistakes, luck becomes less of a factor - only incredibly good/bad dice will level the playing field, so luck is less of a factor.
To put it another way, to beat a complete noob, or TripleA’s AI, I wouldn’t need much luck, so luck would not be much of a factor in that game. I’ll win every time, good luck or bad. Regardless of luck, I win. Therefore, luck is not a factor.
To beat an equally matched opponent (definition: we have played 1,000 games against each other and each won 500) I’ll probably win if I get lucky and lose if I don’t. It’s a coin toss. Luck. Me winning or losing game #1001 does not prove I am better or worse, just that that time luck was on my side.
@froodster:
@froodster:
Equal skill means equal skill at managing the dice.
Assume I played myself. Both sides played by virtually identical players. Or better yet, the computer plays itself. The winner will be determined purely by luck, as there is no other difference between the players.
If “you” played “yourself”, eventually one of you will make a tactical/strategic mistake. Mistakes happen in every game. [Dont tell me you never make a mistake] You may put too few pieces in a territory to block, or have some units out of position, or fail to take a key territory.
Therefore, the “other you” will take advantage of this mistake.
So am I a better player or a worse player than I am when that happens? I guess you could call it “luck” that your opponent makes a mistake.
When Peyton manning miscalculates and throws an INT returned for an TD (because the DB happened to be in the right place to see the route), was that luck? Colt fans may cry that it was.
It was Peyton’s mistake.
Mistakes are not “luck”. They are “your” failures. “Your” miscalculation. “Your” judgment.
Essentially, they are YOUR fault.
Even playing yourself, neither of “you” are perfect. One of you WILL make more mistakes than the other one of “you”. That is not luck, that was “your” fault. Next time, “you” should try to do better.
@froodster:
[How does that argument fail? Note that in my initial post I said players of equal skill, not equal brilliant skill. You’re not saying that the Weak AI for UK is weaker than the Weak AI for Japan, are you? It’s the same AI, therefore equal skill (except of course that the AI may be more adapted to one country) [/quote]
The AI is terrible. It makes many mistakes. One of these will be so bad, that the other AI country cannot help but take advantage of it. Therefore, the mistakes are the cause of the loss.
I do think the AI “can be better adapted” for one country though (such as USSR which only has land units to consider).
Even playing yourself, neither of “you” are perfect. One of you WILL make more mistakes than the other one of “you”. That is not luck, that was “your” fault. Next time, “you” should try to do better.
Well, I’m not going to beat myself up over it… Omigosh I just made a funny.
I think you don’t understand the concept of “all else being equal”. That leaves whatever isn’t DEFINED as equal as the determining factor. A little Gedanken experiment. Or if you don’t believe there can be truly equal players, consider it as “as skill differential approaches 0”.
There IS an element of luck in the game (dice) and it plays a bigger role proportionally as other factors become smaller (ie. difference in skill).
To make it really simple: my two equal players have both amassed forces of 100 armor. Who wins the decisive battle, the smart one or the lucky one? Since brains can’t influence dice, I put my money on the lucky one. It’s interesting to note that mutual annihilation in that scenario is a pretty unlikely result - one or the other will survive with an average of 8 or 9 tanks, purely because of luck. Between these otherwise very closely matched players, that advantage is decisive and determines the game.
Whatever. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. And I think the football analogy is weak.
@froodster:
Even playing yourself, neither of “you” are perfect. One of you WILL make more mistakes than the other one of “you”. That is not luck, that was “your” fault. Next time, “you” should try to do better.
Well, I’m not going to beat myself up over it… Omigosh I just made a funny.
I think you don’t understand the concept of “all else being equal”. That leaves whatever isn’t DEFINED as equal as the determining factor. A little Gedanken experiment. Or if you don’t believe there can be truly equal players, consider it as “as skill differential approaches 0”.
There IS an element of luck in the game (dice) and it plays a bigger role proportionally as other factors become smaller (ie. difference in skill).
To make it really simple: my two equal players have both amassed forces of 100 armor. Who wins the decisive battle, the smart one or the lucky one? Since brains can’t influence dice, I put my money on the lucky one. It’s interesting to note that mutual annihilation in that scenario is a pretty unlikely result - one or the other will survive with an average of 8 or 9 tanks, purely because of luck. Between these otherwise very closely matched players, that advantage is decisive and determines the game.
Whatever. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. And I think the football analogy is weak.
No, what you dont get is that against your 100 armor, I will have a mix of inf/armor. Which costs the same IPC, but is more likely to win me the battle. In which case, the dice didnt screw you, it was your strategy of 100 tanks that did.
The football analogy is 100% true. But you seem to want to blame anything but “you” for a loss. Not surprising, since so many do.
You cannot be “equal” because you cannot eliminate mistakes in decision making. That is your flaw. No matter what scenario, human beings will make mistakes.
And I guess you will never “get that”.
I could care less whether you “buy” it. It happens. From personal experience, an Origins opponent took Ukraine with USSR, AFTER I added 2 inf as a bid, with NO GERMAN HITS. The German counter into Ukraine was REPULSED. Egypt was empty and Germany had no fleet due to the forced UKR counter attack.
I won that game. Not because the dice magically turned, but because I was better. Sorry that you quit instead of taking the opportunity to treat it as a challenge, “how well can I do given these conditions”.
Regarding your opponent at Origins, he was clearly in a different league. Even I would have smacked your bum with those results from G1.
Disagree. Attacking UKR, (especially with a bid, but even without) is a risky move. You do so, you run the risk of losing or the dice going badly. However, had you moved all your troops into west russia, you have an overwhelming chance to kill the Germans in ONE ROUND, and REDUCE the hits coming back at you.
I say that the WR only strategy is better. Therefore, why people who use it probably win more than you do.
Similarly, attacking the BB wth 3 Fighters + sub is MUCH different than attacking with the BB+trans+sub+fighters and taking Gibraltar. Again, a better strategy.
Huh? I’d think the german player would move his troops while you scramble in w.russia. R1 is your only shot at taking out that German fig. Whoever said I don’t win a lot? Stop making assumptions about my play from my views on luck. I have yet to play someone doing just the WR attack, though. Maybe it’s superior, but I doubt it. Belo would be a better solution and Ukraine even more so.
If you think attacking the bb with the med fleet is a better move regardless I’m doubting your strategic assessments. Every move in this game has consequences. Bringing the fleet will result in a stronger attack, but with that a lot weaker at Egypt. (or do you forego it?)
I use both approaches, btw. I can’t tell whether one is superior to the other, there are way too many variables in each game to get a true feeling. You also haven’t mentioned the mental aspect of the game with one word. Just like in poker bluffing is a major part as well. I may be unwilling to sacrifice my German airforce to sink your UK navy but I can trick you into believing I will regardless. (Or you can call my bluff and I will come out losing) You can be as fluid, flexible and adaptable as no one else, ultimately dice will decide most games. That does not mean that a number of players playing 1000 games between them one may have a win percentage of 80% and another 50%. However, I seriously doubt anyone would have such a high win percentage as 80%. During all those games his opponents would adjust their play along the way and even if they could not copy the master 100% luck would mostly even the results out.
90% luck, 10% skill.
Argh. What you don’t get is that I am defining a hypothetical. You can’t change my hypothetical on me, make your own. In my hypothetical both players have amassed forces of equal strength. That can happen, no? Granted it might be dumb to pull the trigger in that situation, but remember my players might be equally stupid, not equally brilliant. But even if equally brilliant, if neither player can gain an edge as DEFINED IN MY HYPOTHETICAL, eventually one or the other will have to decide to let the dice decide.
And I am not one to blame the dice when I lose. I haven’t lost yet :-P (only three games here admittedly). My tournament game I won with the help of some good dice, but with bad dice I would have won a round later. I’m not saying luck is the only factor ever. You seem to be saying it is not a factor at all. I totally agree that a good player minimizes their exposure to bad luck.
But me and Sime were pretty close in terms of skill I think. With different dice, he might have won, or it would have taken me longer to win.
What I’m saying is that luck makes a BIGGER difference the closer in skill the players get. If I was playing a 4 year old kid who had never played a board game before in his life, I would win every time, luck or no luck - do you disagree? Then luck is not a factor in that game because it’s effect is insignificant compared to the skill differential.
Between relatively equally matched opponents, luck will make a much bigger difference, because the other differences are not as big as they are between unmatched opponents.
You can be “relatively equal” can’t you? Or does every single game prove that the winner is the best and the loser is an idiot? Would you say that about the game between Switch and JSP?
