that’s where skill comes in, like the poker analogy (and the song says)
you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
in other words, pull back and regroup don’t suicide your remaining forces in jsut to get slaughtered.
if you attack ukraine for that tasty fig and get 0-2 and he nails you guess what? it is probably a good idea to retreat baack to caucasus and possibly even change your placement and next rounds buy/strategy
I agree with Darth
I see I missed the signing for the league play while I was away.
You can still sign up!  :-)
There is no deadline.
You just need 9 games finished by the end of the year to qualify to “win the pts total”.
I can put you in if you’d like.
@Sankt:
I think it only takes about 2-4 games to go from noob all the way to average player (assuming you have some sort of A&A experience, ie you played Classic).
I think it takes another 8-10 games to approach the good level. On both sides you get more comfortable with the KGF and you’ve probably seen some games that are KJF too.
The difficult one is going from a good player to a great player, and that one doesn’t get a number. Maybe you get there maybe you don’t.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying all along, we just draw different conclusions. Someone falling into the “great player” category will win 90% of his games against the “noob” based on skill. In that respect it’s fair to say it’s 90% skill and 10% luck. I introduced the difficult term “equally skilled opponents”. That means between two “great players” luck will be the deciding factor by as much as 90%.
I also think that the leap from “noob” to “average” is a lot bigger than the step from “good” to “great”. Therefore a game between a good player and a great player will also be mainly decided by luck.
I don’t know what kind of players will enter your league, but I guess you will have players from all categories thus making a win percentage of 90% possible. But after just one season those “noobs” will be average players at minimum and unless you introduce new players next season no one will be able to get a 90% win percentage. Maybe 70% since some people never learn. :-P
Ah, okay.
Yeah we will have verying quality, and we will always accept new players that wish to join. But that was one of the things Djensen wanted to do with the league, give palyers a chance to play a variety of people and learn as much as you can.
Note: I also didn’t have a problem with any of your posts it was just that one little word thrown in there.  :wink:
Certainly there are degrees of luck and degrees of skill. But the split is 10% luck and 90% skill. The same guys don’t keep winning at tournaments just because they’re lucky.
This game has a lot of risk management in it. Most folks have no idea what that really means; that doesn’t mean the game is about luck.
Against evenly matched players that 10% luck factor may decide an individual game, but, like in poker, that doesn’t mean skill isn’t the most important factor by far.
Peace
@CrazyStraw:
Certainly there are degrees of luck and degrees of skill. But the split is 10% luck and 90% skill. The same guys don’t keep winning at tournaments just because they’re lucky.
They were distracted by your tasty pecan pie…
Squirecam
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management. And Darth used a great anaology with the “know when to fold”
Sure, a set of very bad dice can really play havoc with a strat (part of why I like ADS over LL is the potential, actually the likelyhood, that this will happen at least ONCE in a game).
The key to being a good player (and the point of every argument i have ever had regarding Low Luck) is that the truly good players can HANDLE those setbacks and changes in strat that result from bad dice, or good dice.
With new or even average players, dice may indeed decide the game. But against a skilled or better player, unless the bad dice repeat over and over and over, then skill will be the ultimate determining factor.
There’s a Cossack saying, “Do not salute yourself in victory, or blame your horse in defeat.”
–
My horse’s name is Lucky, and I am not a Cossack.
@ncscswitch:
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management.Â
yep… his brilliant one post insight was not lost on you, for sure…
@ncscswitch:
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management.Â
yep… his brilliant one post insight was not lost on you, for sure…
What is wrong with a theory of risk management???
Posted on: January 26, 2007, 04:58:02 PMPosted by: ncscswitch
And Darth used a great anaology with the “know when to fold”
Posted on: January 26, 2007, 08:10:58 AMPosted by: critmonster
that’s where skill comes in, like the poker analogy (and the song says)
you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
my names not darth :wink:
@ncscswitch:
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management.Â
yep… his brilliant one post insight was not lost on you, for sure…
What is wrong with a theory of risk management???
Nothing, not a damn thing.
I had said the same thing several posts before Crazy Straw….
except i said I manage my risks…
I use a much clearer font.
@CrazyStraw:
I use a much clearer font.
Thanks for the chuckle
I think new players tend to make risky attacks too often, and then blame failure on bad luck.
Personally, a long time ago I used to attack fig + 2inf vs 2 inf, which is a terrible idea. I generally try to attack with a win percent of around 85% for small battles, and 95% or more for large battles. New players will attack with a 60% chance of winning, which is going to lead to not just losing, but losing by a lot.
If a new player ends up regularly losing by a lot because they are attacking at 60% (eg 1 in 10 times it will go very badly for them), whereas the experienced player tend to win by a lot because they are attacking with 90% win ratio, then the new player will interpret this as evidence of luck. Psychology is an interesting element here.
As a sidenote, I was in the tournament game where my opponent missed 29 infantry shots in a row. 1 in 120,000. Though I was solidly winning before that happenned (and probably had a 97% chance of winning the battle).
Played a game where as Germany I happened to have a rogue TRANny and 1 INF within range of Eastern US. The US player mounted a huge invasion force into Europe. His build was all Navy and ground units on the West Coast in preperation for Japan. Left one INF defending EUS.
Was it luck when my INF rolled a “1” and his rolled a “3”?
Or skill that had that rogue TRANny and 1 INF placed to take such a gamble?
I was ready for the TRANny and INF to die for “nothing”. My opponent was not ready for EUS to fall.
The fact that the dice are random is known to all the players. A good player builds strategies and tactics that can handle the bad luck and exploit the good luck. A bad player fails at this and blames the dice.
So it is not really skill that you won, you gambled big time and it payed of.
1 INF on 1 INF for a CAPITAL is an attempt I’ll take every time it is offered. If you win, you win HUGE. If you lose… so what? It was only 1 INF…
So while actually taking the capital in such a situation requires a bit of luck (1 in 3 ish). Leaving the capital open to such an ATTEMPT is puely bad strategy/tactics.
It was stupid that he left only 1 inf to defend but on the other hand you had about a 30% or even less chance to win.
1 inf vs 1 inf is not a good chance.So it is not really skill that you won, you gambled big time and it payed of.
I would hardly say that risking 1 INF (and maybe a TRN) for the chance of taking EUS (robbing the US player of probably 40IPCs of cash and stalling them from purchasing for two rounds even if the territory is retaken immediately) is “gambling big time”.
~Josh
well, when your bomber squadrons are destroyed by a fat merchant marine with a .45 that is not a lack of skill. a lone transport is just what a bomber is looking for. but those things happen sometimes :| just be grateful it isn’t real life, set 'em up and try again
Let me drop a bone to you guys… this just happened in a 5-player game I’m playing here on the forums.
It’s US3 and Japan has just dropped off units to w.can leaving 3 trns in sz63. My bomber is stationed in novo and I decide to be a daredevil and give it a go. All 3 trns sunk and bomber lives. Landing on midway with 1 inf for protection. Japan also has 1 trn in sz60 and 2 inf on Japan, no air in range. Now…
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
@Sankt:
Let me drop a bone to you guys… this just happened in a 5-player game I’m playing here on the forums.
It’s US3 and Japan has just dropped off units to w.can leaving 3 trns in sz63. My bomber is stationed in novo and I decide to be a daredevil and give it a go. All 3 trns sunk and bomber lives. Landing on midway with 1 inf for protection. Japan also has 1 trn in sz60 and 2 inf on Japan, no air in range. Now…
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
No, you managed your risks. Perhaps you felt that taking out the transports was:
1). Too big of a reward to NOT take the 22% risk
2). The only way to get back into the game (if you were behind)
3). You probably felt that the bomber would not live so you didn’t worry about defending him in Midway.
22% is a high outcome percentage… you WILL see these results. Now if you posted something like a 2-4% outcome, then I might call that a bit lucky.
I would say your opponent took a calculated risk as well that didn’t pay off for him. If he could afford the transports, then perhaps he was ok with that risk. If losing 3 transports may now cost him the game, then he took a bad gamble (unless he is losing). he then mis-mangaged his risks.
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
No roll of the dice could ever be called “skilled.” Â All dice rolls are lucky or unlucky, accepting the notion that they are truly random.
Your opponent clearly saw your Bomber in Novo, and took the risk of leaving 3 unescorted transports within easy striking distance. Â Probably assumed that you wouldn’t risk the Bomber against 3 1s. Â You were bold and made the attack, with a very low likelihood that your Bomber would survive the combat. Â You were lucky in the results, no question.
The issue of skill comes into play when determining your strategy and tactics accounting for the luck factor built into the game. Â Every player must take risks in individual battles at some point. Â The question is how skillfully you are able to judge when to take those risks and when not to, and whether or not you have developed a backup plan in case your carefully-judged risks should end up on the unlucky side for you.
The US can usually afford to lose the Bomber if it means crippling the Japanese transport system… I wonder if you would have made the same decision to attack if it were a UK Bomber nearby? Â
~Josh
PS - Â And I think your opponent will certainly attack Midway. Â He definitely wants to kill that Bomber now. Â Maybe it wasn’t a good idea to leave it in reach of anything.
