Low Luck explained (& advertised)

Obviously everyone will have their own preferences, and that is fine.

But I quite like the dice. This is because I find that having to account for probabilities makes the game more interesting and more challenging. I think it contributes to the strategy of the game (with the proviso that now and then you do just get diced and that sucks) Secondly, that sometimes one loses battles that they would normally likely win means that one has to adjust their play to unexpected circumstances…

I don’t think I’d find the game that interesting if I knew in advance that every battle I had committed slightly more than my opponent to was going to be a victory, or avoided all defensive combats where I knew I would lose.

It would also seem to me that low luck games would massively favour the axis without a massive bid since the axis is the side that has the capacity to expand in the early game and would have more freedom to do so knowing that it could choose 100% battles at less cost.

Also, although I don’t want to get stuck on this as the game is only very loosely a historical one (and so its rules and components should be judged more by what they add to gameplay than to historical accuracy), but there are plenty of battles where the side that should have been able to easily win lost because of factors that were not able to be calculated in advance. Bad weather, idiot general, etc. Dice allow for that sort of situation.

@farmboy said in Low Luck explained (& advertised):

Obviously everyone will have their own preferences, and that is fine.

But I quite like the dice. This is because I find that having to account for probabilities makes the game more interesting and more challenging. I think it contributes to the strategy of the game (with the proviso that now and then you do just get diced and that sucks) Secondly, that sometimes one loses battles that they would normally likely win means that one has to adjust their play to unexpected circumstances…

I don’t think I’d find the game that interesting if I knew in advance that every battle I had committed slightly more than my opponent to was going to be a victory, or avoided all defensive combats where I knew I would lose.

It would also seem to me that low luck games would massively favour the axis without a massive bid since the axis is the side that has the capacity to expand in the early game and would have more freedom to do so knowing that it could choose 100% battles at less cost.

Also, although I don’t want to get stuck on this as the game is only very loosely a historical one (and so its rules and components should be judged more by what they add to gameplay than to historical accuracy), but there are plenty of battles where the side that should have been able to easily win lost because of factors that were not able to be calculated in advance. Bad weather, idiot general, etc. Dice allow for that sort of situation.

Yes bad dice = morale issues, supplies, leadership etcetc but I am looking at where if the dice go real bad it’s restricted but not the place to discuss since this is probably off topic

@farmboy said in Low Luck explained (& advertised):

But I quite like the dice. This is because I find that having to account for probabilities makes the game more interesting and more challenging. I think it contributes to the strategy of the game (with the proviso that now and then you do just get diced and that sucks) Secondly, that sometimes one loses battles that they would normally likely win means that one has to adjust their play to unexpected circumstances…

Yep, you fall into category B “b) they want the variance in the game that high and low dice rolling provides”

I definitely agree there is no “best” option for all of us play these games for different reasons and like different aspects of the play.

@andrewaagamer I do like the variance, but I also think that sometimes people have an impression that dice make A&A less of a strategy game and I don’t think that is the case at all. How you think about strategy in a game that involves probabilities is going to be different than one when you are dealing with certainties, but that doesn’t make it less strategic.

@general-6-stars said in Low Luck explained (& advertised):

Yes bad dice = morale issues, supplies, leadership etcetc

yea like when Woods pulled his Division outta Chickamauga lol

@myygames said in Low Luck explained (& advertised):

Also, as for a game: I am always willing to lose a game if it brings opportunity to learn! Just let me know when you are available to teach me

I just finished a game and owe Karl7 a game so we will head into that game next. Once we are done with that game I will ping you again though there is a chance we run into each other in the 2022 OOB Playoffs. If I can overcome my disastrous start versus oysteilo to get out of the first round.

One of the great things about this site of course is that it gives us plenty of opportunities to play the game how we prefer so nothing that follows is meant to begrudge your preference to play low luck.

But I don’t agree that the game becomes more tactical with low luck. I think you play exactly the same way except that with dice: 1) probabilities become a factor in game strategy to consider, 2) you lack certainty of the outcome of particular moves and so you also have to play to mitigate risk (as Andrew noted earlier) and 3) adapt your play to the sometimes unexpected outcomes provided by the dice. In most games, at least in the long run, these unexpected outcomes tend to hit both ways and so, to some extent, even out.

When you play with dice, they are almost always a factor that shape the outcome (even when dice feel fairly balanced there is variation across combats and some combats will be more significant than others), but its much rarer that they are the primary factor. Superior play can usually compensate (at least if one is playing to minimize risk), although of course there are exceptions. I know I’ve won a couple of games against superior opponents because of consistently great dice, but I don’t think I have ever lost a game where I can point to the dice as the key reason (even if I’m sometimes unhappy about the dice I roll).

@myygames said in Low Luck explained (& advertised):

@farmboy I think the dice make the tactic in that game have less impact. Your fate will not only be ruled by skill but also by a random factor. In that sense my opinion is that it becomes more tactical if played on low luck. But as you said, everyone can play the game he likes. And as my gamemate says: Playing with odds and being able to judge them correctly is also a great skill…

You all know Axis and Allies is a gambling game as well as strategy game. Low Luck reduces the thing to a 2 dimensional affair. Low Luck is for “Bean Counters”, who can’t cope with dice swings and can’t adapt their strategy accordingly. Their dream is to have everything written down in a folder and follow whats written exactly in every game taking the fun out of AA…
It must remain only an option because the setup was created with normal dice in mind and you break the games for the most part.

@imperious-leader said in Low Luck explained (& advertised):

You all know Axis and Allies is a gambling game as well as strategy game. Low Luck reduces the thing to a 2 dimensional affair. Low Luck is for “Bean Counters”, who can’t cope with dice swings and can’t adapt their strategy accordingly. Their dream is to have everything written down in a folder and follow whats written exactly in every game taking the fun out of AA…
It must remain only an option because the setup was created with normal dice in mind and you break the games for the most part.

Calling LL players “Bean Counters” seems needlessly vilifying. I also fail to see the logic of the counter-arguments here. Philosophically what is the difference between a player using a probability tool to decide if they want to attack at 96% or 98% odds and one who decides if they want to use 100% or not? Feels like splitting hairs. My experience has also been that many games are decided by the sum of the smaller battles that happen where low luck and full luck produce similar outcomes. If your opponent is applying maximum pressure on you then you won’t have the luxury of making everything a sure outcome and still need to choose how much you want to gamble.

The “dream to have everything written down in a folder” dig sounds more like the probability meta players that like to reduce the game to 20+ round extravaganzas where everyone has a stack of 100+ units just waiting to see who blinks first. And again, if you’re using a calculator to tell you when your attack is favorable, how is that different from LL? In LL you haven’t invested 20+ rounds in a game just to have a 1% or 2% loss right at the finish line. Keep in mind when this game was out in the 90s we were doing LL calculations anyway in our heads to decide when to attack.

Any outcome in a LL game is also a possible outcome in a full luck game. So if the 4-stack attack R1 is not part of the Russian meta it must have a downside. I would assume that Russia possibly loses too many units on the German counter so it may not be worth doing. I haven’t been able to play enough LL games though to see this for sure. But if proper players are expected to roll with the punches in any and all circumstances and still somehow win, then this shouldn’t be an issue for the German player either way. Or if they are actually disadvantaged, maybe LL games need to revert back to the OOB setup. I’m leaning a bit towards LL favors the Axis but still haven’t played enough to have a more informed opinion on it. Russia benefits from guaranteed trades in the early game for sure, but so does Germany in the late game when they have to start doing trades against Allied landings in Europe.

As this site eventually made me one of the stronger Global live players, I’d say that the idea that luck is decisive in Axis and Allies is overstated. Strong players won’t make attacks that require luck, they will just keep building up and manuevering. Luck very rarely decides a game–I’m not saying it has no role, but you need to choose a strategy that does not rely on a certain outcome during the opener, and continue to pursue a strategy all game that does not require you to fight a 50/50 battle.

As an example, in an 8 turn game, it is more or less impossible to allow berlin, rome, tokyo, or london to fall. It happens all the time, and i’ve won that way in 4 of the last 9 games. But, as I read it, it is simply an error to lose those capitals because there is pretty much no way in my simulation you can buy and place correctly and still lose them.

Players make mistakes all the time, in this case, if your opponent doesnt make a mistake with the Axis, the Allies will simply lose.

They are bean counters. No doubt about it. They want exact results with no luck. All life is luck and games are simulations of life.

I don’t vilify anything. Its accurate reporting of facts and theirs nothing glamorous of low luck. To me its only value is for play testing of games, not actual games.

Bean counters are also mostly Rule Lawyers. They argue rules all day if possible.