LL vs dice is not different as which player will win, the better player will win more often. This is exactly the same for both combat systems.
There are several people who confuses risk management with luck. This is not the same. The word “Management”, I think of something we can actually manage. No one can manage dice rolls, unless you are cheating, or you have a divine agreement with the dice gods. Either you can control the dice rolls or you can’t. If you cannot control the dice rolls you can not do risk management in dice games.
There is also risk and randomness in low luck, but not so much randomness as in ADS.
In low luck, the randomness is nerfed considerably, this could actually mean that risk management in low luck games are better handled by players than in dice games, b/c you cannot control the dice, and b/c of less randomness in low luck games.
On the multiple attacks in LL vs dice, that is true. There is less chance to be diced in LL than ADS.
The predictability in LL in the opening rnds makes a possibility that both players can continue to the 4-5th rnd. Couple a days ago I attacked Egy G1, both attacker and defender scored 1 or 2 hits each, then the second rnd of combat defender scores 4 hits. Defender also hit 95% with all Russian infs on the eastern front. Today I attacked the US BB in sz 53 with 4 Jap ftrs, I retreated with 1 ftr. US BB didn’t even get damaged during the attack…
Some dice games are decided in the first rnd. Is a combat system which in many cases decides the outcome of a game in the first rnd make it a better game than a combat system which lets both players keep playing for 4-8 rnds?
If chess games are almost always decided by the better player, some of us doesn’t think thats a bad concept. Some of us like competitive gaming, regardless of experience and skill level.
If A&A with LL is not A&A, then there is also no skill in A&A. With LL there is more skills, less randomness, more of the factors that players can control.
I want the outcome of a game to based as much as possible on my decisions, i.e. like chess. That is the beauty in strategy gaming.
One last time: Yahtzee is a different game, its not a strategy game. Its not Axis and Allies.
I think both systems are good, but I might slightly prefer LL.
There is nothing wrong with Low Luck. It’s simply low risk Axis and Allies. It changes the nature of the strategy because you can pinpoint exactly how many units each battle will need to take a territory or successfully strafe an opponents stack. It’s still Axis and Allies, just a modifed version. Similar to Axis and Allies with or without tech.
I enjoy games of LL, but I just prefer ADS. Although, LL often looks even more appealing right after I make an attack with say 6 aircraft against an AA and see 4 of them get shot down.
I think LL is a valuable tool that can be used to determine good strategies from bad. For the most part any succussful strategy in LL will work in ADS. There are exceptions, particularly when dealing with tons and tons of small scale battles, but it can really help you eliminate bad moves or a bad series of moves (long term). A bad attack in LL is not going to all of a sudden be a good idea in ADS, unless you are counting on dice and if you routinely do that you are going to lose 70-80% of the time.
LL can also teach you how to leverage superior position. Because you don’t have to deal with drastic dice swings you can plan a bit farther out and be fairly certain if your stack is safe from attack. Now translate this same stack to ADS and you can do the same moves without fear knowing the only way this is a “bad move” is if your opponent gets good dice. And as I said before that is not a winning position for your opponent.
@Subotai:
There are several people who confuses risk management with luck. This is not the same. The word “Management”, I think of something we can actually manage. No one can manage dice rolls, unless you are cheating, or you have a divine agreement with the dice gods. Either you can control the dice rolls or you can’t. If you cannot control the dice rolls you can not do risk management in dice games.
That misses the point. A way of minimizing (or ‘managing’) risk is to fight fewer battles but with more attacking units per battle. For instance, on Japan 1 (AA50-41) you can attack the USA battleship with 2 fighters and a destroyer and send 2 fighters to the Western USA coast to attack the destroyer+transport. Or, some other combination, like 3 fighters and a destroyer against the USA battleship, and one fighter against the destroyer+trans. You risk failing against the destroyer+trans combo in the latter, but are almost assured of destroying the battleship. Or, you can stretch it. The player is forced to way the pros and cons of both plays. In LL, it is dumbed down.
I must agree with rock. With normal dices, you always must have a B plan just in case some wacky roll happens, so it needs more skill than predictable LL. Trades in particular are heavily affected by LL. It’s the same for playing with tech: you need a B plan just in case japs research LRA or jet fighters.
I noticed usually LL players prefer no tech and many of them also chooses KGF as basis. A interesting coincidence. I have nothing to say about KGF (it’s a matter of what strat you prefer), but I prefer more variety of strats and tactics available with tech+ADS combo, even if I lose 5% of the games because of crazy dices
See I prefer low luck because it is low luck, not no luck. The battles that you have to win, like when germany does a last ditch attack against moscow even though germany only has 12% chance to win, then wins without loosing a plane, really ruin the game for me. With low luck there is still luck, even sending the bomber to Egypt you may win with just the bomber, G1 hit on Karelia, you may not loose a single plane, or you may loose all of 'em. J1 hits against china can go horribly wrong as well, or the attack on Kwangtung. But the fights you gotta win or else, you won’t loose those. The only thing that really makes me mad in LL is people who dont realize that if the AA gun shoots down a plane there attack will fail and then scream and cry because they didnt think about ‘risk management’ and send in 2 planes. Hell even the 2 subs 1 fig vs UK BB can fail in LL. Attack rolls a 4 and a 3, defender rolls a 4. If defender hits and attacker misses, it can get really really bad. Like it should with small attacks. But i cannot hit a capital with 10 arm vs 20 inf and once in a while get ‘lucky’.
The biggest thing I hate in dice is a 1 turn game where I dont even get to do much. Like when G1 goes horribly wrong and then the player concedes before russia even gets to go. I’ve had that happen from someone in this thread.
I think what it comes down to is this. If i’m playing a competitive game, i’m using LL. Because i’m gonna be really jacked if I loose because of dice. If i’m playing for ‘kicks’ or ‘fun’ I like dice and tech and all that crazy stuff, but it feels more like playing Risk than axis and allies.
I agree with the first half of the first post, that risk management is an important part of the game.
having dice compels players to attack with more forces or overwhelming forces to ensure that they are victories. In low luck, you can attack with the exact quantity you need and no more, often allowing you to attack more territories per turn, which changes it into a different game.
See I prefer low luck because it is ……
This discussion is all about personal player preferences.
We should discuss which is better… frying versus flame broiling next.
Because i’m gonna be really jacked if I loose because of dice.
Funny how you don’t mention the other side of the coin… when you WIN because of the dice.
Funny how you don’t mention the other side of the coin… when you WIN because of the dice.
Personally, and I can only vouch for myself, if I won because of some ridiculous attack that just got lucky, I wouldn’t feel nearly as happy with that win. I would much rather have a good clean match… it’s a game, after all 8-)
Nothing’s worse than when your opponent calls an attack that definitely should win, loses because of crappy dice in the first round of fire, and then when you end up winning, “It was those damn dice!”
If I win by some crazy attack where I shouldn’t have and it alone won me the game it would feel hallow, like putting in a cheat code in a video game to win.
I’m with Buggo 100%
I strongly prefer LL, however due to lack of community interest, I usually end up laying ADS.
ADS is a fine game too, and competitive play in a league style system should result in the best player should end up on top at the end of a season (playing many games will tend to “normalise” the dice variance).
I think for a smaller scale event like a single elimination tourney, then the “best” player from the player pool will very often not win the tourney.
I mean, it’s pretty easy for a slightly “worse” player (say 5% worse) to get a 6%+ variance in the dice results which will be enough to knock out the better player.
I know that my opponent and I were pretty evenly matched in Round 2 of the S01 event and I had one turn where I hit with 3/4 AA dice which I believe was the main determining factor in our game.
One last time: LL is a different game. Its not Axis and Allies.
Most of your analysis makes sense, except you are simply biased. Why would risk management be the aspect that defines A&A? Imho, it is not. To me, A&A is defined by its strategic character, giving you the feeling like you are a WW2 general trying to outwit the enemy. The method of getting battles resolved is simply less important to me. I would even be fine with a no luck system since this would not take away the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think risk management is the “soul” of A&A, go poker.
It changes the nature of the strategy because you can pinpoint exactly how many units each battle will need to take a territory or successfully strafe an opponents stack.
Change the word “strategy” by “tactics” and I’ll agree. The strategies in LL are EXACTLY the same as in ADS. Only some tactical tricks are not.
Or, you can stretch it. The player is forced to way the pros and cons of both plays. In LL, it is dumbed down.
The problem is that “stretching it” is the optimal way of playing A&A…
Btw, did you ever try LL?
The problem is that “stretching it” is the optimal way of playing A&A…
Btw, did you ever try LL?
I have played a fair deal of both versions. I don’t think it is biased of me to call LL not A&A, there is no mention of playing by such a system in the rules, and it is a significant characteristic.
I would also like to mention again that determining the best player more often is not the only measure of whether a game system is better than another. Sometimes for certain ideas to be expressed chaotic elements must play a roll.
Lastly, “stretching it” is often not the right play in A&A. Sometimes it is highly debatable at a minimum(such as the raging debate over Egypt)
There is also no mention of playing w/o tech in AAR and Classic. There is also no mention of bids, neither in AAR, Classic and AA50.
“Chatic elements”, in the context it is used here, means luck and randomness.
I see A&A as modern variant of chess. Its not the same, but there are similarities. Imo chess should be an ideal for many boardgames. Its simple, its easy to learn, its hard to master against good players, its very popular, have been known for thousands of years. Chess is also an abstraction of reality, as medieval king vs king, emperor vs emperor etc.
If I’m playing in a ladder or league or just casual games, I have the same approach to A&A as I would if I played chess. I also have the same “state of mind”. Its a competition, its a struggle. Why play such a game if choices are less important?
@Subotai:
There is also no mention of playing w/o tech in AAR and Classic. There is also no mention of bids, neither in AAR, Classic and AA50.
“Chatic elements”, in the context it is used here, means luck and randomness.
I see A&A as modern variant of chess. Its not the same, but there are similarities. Imo chess should be an ideal for many boardgames. Its simple, its easy to learn, its hard to master against good players, its very popular, have been known for thousands of years. Chess is also an abstraction of reality, as medieval king vs king, emperor vs emperor etc.
If I’m playing in a ladder or league or just casual games, I have the same approach to A&A as I would if I played chess. I also have the same “state of mind”. Its a competition, its a struggle. Why play such a game if choices are less important?
First a little background about myself. I have played competitive chess for about 15 years, own north of 200 books on the subject, work for a chess site, count grandmasters amoung friends.
All that said, I like A&A becuase it isn’t chess. It is a separate game. Your argument that A&A (and apparently other games) should be as much like chess as possible holds little weight. Poker is a fascinating game, and the fact that “luck” often determines the winner completely misses the point. What a good poker player takes satisfaction in is the knowledge that they made good descisions, and the result is beside the point. Why not apply the same attitude to A&A?
Ok here is the thing, it all depends what you want out of the game.
Dice players want a more ‘beer and pretzels’ type game, where the chaotic elements are seen as a positive as it keeps the game ‘interesting’ and more ‘fun’. Kind of a casual serious game.
LL players want the pure competition, minimized chaotic elements, where risk management is a factor, but luck does not win the game. They want the satisfaction of winning or loosing based soley upon there decisions, not the dice.
Neither is correct or incorrect. If i devised a variant chess where each piece has an attack and defense value and they rolled dice when you tried to take another players piece to add chaos and risk management that would not make it the ‘wrong’ way to play, as the correct way to play a game is however you have fun with it.
Actually that would be interesting, use a d6, pawns attack and defend on a 1/2, knights like original armor 3/2, etc. Do i take the players rook with my queen as I have a good chance of winning AND killing his pawn that he tries to take me with? Might be fun, might not be the original intent, but is NOT the wrong way to play the game.
Ok here is the thing, it all depends what you want out of the game.
Dice players want a more ‘beer and pretzels’ type game, where the chaotic elements are seen as a positive as it keeps the game ‘interesting’ and more ‘fun’. Kind of a casual serious game.
i’m a dice player, and dont consider axis to be beer and pretzels at all. the only advantage i see in LL is that it is more predictable. the disavantages of LL include the dumbing down of several core elements.
I guess different people see different matters in games. When I see A&A, I see “chess”. For me, A&A is a strategic war game. I like A&A b/c its not poker…also, I think poker players who wins a lot, take much satisfaction in winning lots of money :wink:
Larry Harris never meant that A&A should be like poker. I guess L.H. thought dice should simulate the fog of war. Imo it does not. Dice is more like a blind man in a dark room, then the fog of war. If played any game where I won or lost money, then the money would be all that mattered, at least if it was lots of money to win or lose.
A&A is not about money.
About the poker analogy, in poker you can decide how much to bet. You don’t have to bet at all. If you’re playing A&A you bet and gamble even if you don’t do anything, and whatever decisions are made during a game, will affect chances of winning or losing. If you fold in A&A you concede. In A&A not betting or not calling is same as if you don’t attack and only retreat, you will certainly lose. Defensive play in poker can result in losing $10 instead of $5000. In A&A you can only be defensive up to a certain point, and when your capital is surrounded its too late to change tactics. There are choices in poker which are not available in A&A.
Chess is a board game, like A&A. Poker is a card game, unlike A&A. Chess was made for someone who couldn’t live w/o war. Chess is more popular than A&A. Why not apply the same attitude to A&A as chess?
@Subotai:
I Defensive play in poker can result in losing $10 instead of $5000. In A&A you can only be defensive up to a certain point, and when your capital is surrounded its too late to change tactics. There are choices in poker which are not available in A&A.
In poker, you have the antis or blinds. Defensive play can only be applied to “a point” in poker as well, or you lose all your money, just slower.
Chess is a board game, like A&A. Poker is a card game, unlike A&A. Chess was made for someone who couldn’t live w/o war. Chess is more popular than A&A. Why not apply the same attitude to A&A as chess?
I don;t see how popularity enters into it. Chess is an anceint game and has had thousands of years to mature and spread itself. While i consider chess to be a magnificent game only equaled by Go, it expresses different ideas than axis and allies.
