Why we should all stop using this method of casualty determination (in 18 minutes):
@The_Good_Captain very insightful video with the math to back it up. Hope this one gets some traction for you.
I think you are missing the point of Low Luck. It is not to remove any inconsistencies with the dice; it is to to remove low odds results.
In your video you give an example of a 36% battle in Pure Luck dropping to 10% in Low Luck. That is the whole purpose of Low Luck.
Results outside of the bulk of the Bell Curve are not possible in Low Luck. What Low Luck does is take a 75% battle and make it 100% or a 25% result changed to 0%. That is the point of Low Luck. To remove a game changing low odds result.
@AndrewAAGamer said in Low Luck Lies - The serious problems with this silly mechanic.:
I think you are missing the point of Low Luck. It is not to remove any inconsistencies with the dice; it is to to remove low odds results.
I think you’re missing the point of the video. It is to demonstrate why that doesn’t translate well in games without Low Luck.
In your video you give an example of a 36% battle in Pure Luck dropping to 10% in Low Luck. That is the whole purpose of Low Luck.
…and I feel strongly this purpose is entirely unhelpful and (tried to) demonstrate why (with what you just posted being one of the reasons).
Results outside of the bulk of the Bell Curve are not possible in Low Luck. What Low Luck does is take a 75% battle and make it 100% or a 25% result changed to 0%. That is the point of Low Luck. To remove a game changing low odds result.
Right. I disagree that this is helpful or interesting in Axis and Allies for the reasons stated in the video.
Results outside of the bulk of the Bell Curve are not possible in Low Luck. What Low Luck does is take a 75% battle and make it 100% or a 25% result changed to 0%. That is the point of Low Luck. To remove a game changing low odds result.
But why is this a good thing? 25% is 25%. It’s (relatively) low but it’s certainly possible. You’re not “owed” a victory just because it’s 75%. If the battle doesn’t go well, you can always retreat.
Low Luck removes a lot of the “adrenaline” of the game as well. Once you “know” what’s going to happen, the game also becomes more boring.
Not for me. I really, really hate it when I get diced. I know everyone does, but I like it far more when I can script and plan solo games, and it’s far easier to do that with low luck. I find it very fun to put just enough units to win a battle, a feeling far easier to achieve in low luck.
I don’t doubt that it’s not helpful for me as a player. It’s certainly more enjoyable though.
Commenting on the general debate Re: LL Vs. Dice.
I think LL is fine in and of itself for the reasons @AndrewAAGamer stated (after all, no one enjoys being cheated out of a game because of a stray sub-10% result of a critical battle not speaking from recent personal experiences at all what’s a “Gen Con”?).
However, it must also be noted that due to the discrepancies that come with using LL it is effectively a different combat system than dice. That’s still fine in and of itself. Most wargames resolve combat between units by comparing combat stats/modifiers and rolling a single die (sometimes 2) and checking a results table. The issue, I think, is conflating the two and making major game balance decisions (setup changes, bidding, modded rules, etc.) for a dice-based game when the tests that led to said decisions were performing exclusively using LL.
That’s a great way of putting it.
