What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

I’m not sure it’s so much an issue of resources/troops as it is just predictability.

Leningrad obviously can’t hold out, but with India you have the option of moving russian tanks and air (and later other troops) to hold onto it on turn 1 and beyond.

In a regular game this might not be a terrible strategy, but in any game where it’s the only strategy, that’s kind of lame!

But still giving britain more troops until india isn’t credibly threatened just pitches the advantage back to the allies.  I could see doing that if you then took away troops from africa to compensate.

Alternately, changing Japan’s VP city from Kwangtung to Manchuria might be an interesting counter-balance to make sure the axis feel the heat more often.

game
i will see about finding the lattest/greatest rules and give you the link.

well that was easy, hear are the  rules

You must land at least 1 unit to a land territory from a transport in the same sea zone as the Battleship in order to fire the single bombard attack.

You need to add up the total Unit IPC value for each side (land and naval, not including ICs). If it’s a tie at the end of the Russian turn (or if the Axis is ahead), then the Axis is very likely to win the game.  You can do this automatically if you are using a program like aBattleMap.

I developed a statistical model for predicting game outcomes which is pretty accurate (100% accuracy on my small sample of games, starting on round 5):
http://www.campusactivism.org/blog/node/189

Thanks DM. It was the low luck aspect that really threw me the curveball. Taking a cursory look, it seemed that LL makes a lot of the first round battles, on both side, that are deemed “must do’s” by most players a little more palatable so, all things being equal, it was hard to judge which side would come out ahead at the end of the 1st turn.

I think, maybe SAV file is too big  :? Has somebody bigger this sav files than me?

@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).

Or, if you are like me, just raid chips (and extra Japan INF and ARM, something else I have run out of in the last 2 games I played) from your Milton Bradley Classic AA game.  Exactly the same size and style :-)