What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

If you’re going to use the US as your trading country, then make sure you have a good transport system in place. Get a 4x4 going on. Four transports from Ecan to UK, and UK to EEU (preferably) or Kar. And buy a fighter EVERY round so you can fly it to Russia. Do the same with the UK. Buy a fighter every round and fly it to Russia. Get a good fighter cover going, have Russia buy infantry out the wazoo (and an armour every now and then) and continually wear Germany down.

the thing i like about tripleA is that i have a history in a saved game file.  after entering all the moves (and editing), i can go back R1, step through each move and purchase and study the position.  once i see the clever moves in round 4-5, i can go back and see how they were setup.

i pretty much have to do it this way since many of the allies moves aren’t obvious at first glance.  it takes a few turns of the allies coordinating together (for me) to see why things were done several turns ago and why certain things were not done.

can abattlemap do that for me?  or will i just have to use my memory?

@EskimoJack:

I was going to answer in this thread, but you may still be my opponent in the final match of the tournament and it would be foolish of me to give such information away  :-)

NICE  :-)  :-)  :-)

+1 karma for ya

NP.  Actually thought it was an abbreviation issue…

@Mr:

I saw some of the expansions of A&A have cards.  Do they offset the luck factor of the dice?

I’ve played a many of card-driven military board games and the luck factor is just a high as dice only games.

Ahem, if you are drawings cards, how is that any less random (barring cheating) than rolling dice?

I agree with critmonster – the bizarre results make the game more interesting.  Think of it this way – if every game played out the exact same way, then how interesting is that?  Chess is a bad comparison in some ways because, except for the fact White moves first, the players are perfectly evenly matched.  Not so in A&A.  The game is carefully balanced, but the Allies and Axis clearly don’t have all the same pieces or all the same advantages.  Their positions, pieces, economies and opportunities are all different.

A great example is a recent game I played where, as Japan, I DID NOT GET A SINGLE HIT IN PEARL HARBOR!  Lost 5 pieces (yes, probably should have pulled back) and then proceeded to lose my transport fleet on the U.S.'s turn.  Talk about your big holes, but it was great fun figuring out how to dig out of that situation.  I probably won’t face that again for another 50 games, but you bet I’ll always remember THAT battle!

So my point is, the bizarrely random results are the stuff of which great war stories are made!  That’s why we all spend our time on a forum dedicated to a dice game instead of being hunched over our chess boards.  :wink:

Update:

Germany holds most of Africa with 100% of Japanese forces being diverted to Egypt.  England’s putting 6 units a round into Libya (3 infantry, 3 armor) and hitting Germany for 7 IPC in damage every round (taking 5 damage in return.)  America is invading through Norway and W. Europe with 10 units a round with 5 bombers doing 17/18 IPC in damage (alternate rounds) and taking 12/13 IPC in damage (leaving me with plenty of income to keep at least 10 infantry, usually 6 infantry, 3 artillery, 1 armor) going into Asia.

Germany has yet to see a round after 1 with more then 40 IPC income.  They are currently averaging closer to 38 IPC - 25 in SBRs for a net of 13 IPC to Russia’s 20-28 IPCs.  Japan is no threat as they have to move all builds into Egypt to counter English reinforcements.

Germany has no Atlantic fleet.  Their med fleet is augmented with Japanese battleships to prevent American fighters from sinking them.

Done :-)

There is also a link to it on the main A&A.org web page under links :-)

@ncscswitch:

You must have missed a few of the games in the Games threads…

**NAVAL BATTLES DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WIN A GAME WHERE VICTORY IS DETERMINED BY CONTROL OF LAND TERRITORIES!**  …

Go ahead, play test it a few times.  You will quickly see what I mean.

Well, I agree and do understand your point. But it is sad that control of sea is not worth anything when history shows a different story. What if one included a rule for convoy raids! Try my rule for convoy raid in 2-3 games and then tell me if you think the game becomes more interesting. I just want you to try this rule to see what I mean. Navy will be more important, but with the twist of Axis favor!!! Then you will be more open for the discussion of cheaper navy!

Convoy Raids

The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).