My take on LL versus Dice

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?

@rockrobinoff:

While i consider chess to be a magnificent game

Now, we’re getting somewhere.

Chess is a much better ideal for modern strategy games then poker. Some players invented their own LL system similar to the current LL system also when playing the boardgame f2f, even if it’s much easier to change combat system when using software.
For me A&A is a 1vs1 game, although I could possibly play against 2 players, I don’t play team games anymore. I used to, but not anymore…

While I consider poker to be a modern and fun game, it expresses different ideas than A&A… :lol: :-D :-P

Ok i’m sorry if you think that playing with ‘dice’ adds more strategy to the game when I will outplay my opponent for 7 rounds but they take Moscow when they had 10% odds according to the calc with 50% of there army left after the attack, i’m sorry but I completely disagree.  Or if I win because my US BB at pearl took down 4 figs and a destroyer, etc, etc.  I dont see how that ‘adds’ to the game.

But honestly I just don’t see why some people feel the way they play is the ‘correct’ way to play.  Its a game.  Do you have fun playing your way?  If yes, congratulations you win.

@rockrobinoff:

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?

Hmm, interesting. I do like knowing I made good decisions be it in poker, chess or A&A. That’s indeed why I play all these games (though I’m not going to risk a lot of money with poker ;) ). However, when playing chess, I’m absolutely sure that making good decisions will win/draw me the game against an equal player. In poker I know that making good decisions will also win/draw (as in: not loose a lot in an evening) me the game. In A&A however, this is not the case. You can play a whole night of A&A, only to see all your good decisions smashed by 1 lousy AA. And there’s no way of saying “Allright, I lost because of bad luck, let’s play another one quickly and forget about this” like you can in poker. Which is why, for me, I try to enjoy every game by playing LL, simply because the risk of ruining a game / an evening by crazy dice is non-existent.

It’s the human brain: nobody likes to loose undeserved, and the best way to remove this feeling is by simply playing another game and trying to win again (though a 10 year course on Zen might help too :roll:), which unfortunately is impossible in A&A.

(on a sidenote: playing competitively is also a reason to go LL, but that’s besides the “casual game” you’re talking about)

Well said HolKann

I guess both sides just need to accept that there is a difference of opinion and leave it at that

I personally don’t like LL, as in the real war there were gambles against overwhelming odds that prevailed.  Using dice gives you that opportunity.  I don’t think Patton was going on statistics when he sent the 94th Ghost Corp into the Siegrfried Line in March of '45.  The Ghost Corp primarily of infantry and light artillery withstood the barrage of a whole Panzer division and managed to reach the Rhine!

In all the the 94th took out 3 enemy divisions, and took 20,000 prisoners.

This is a very interesting conversation.  I never had the chance of using LL, but then again I also never have played a game of Axis and Allies through the forums.  I think I would prefer using dice.  I love to overcome some horrid rolls but still come out because of my overall strategy.  I agree LL is good to eliminate poor strategies. I can also understand the side that would like to take more of the randomness out of the game.  It is very fortunate there is a system in place that makes the game enjoyable and can afford players that luxury.

One day I will build up enough courage to stake my chances in a forums game and from there I possibly will try a LL some time!

@HannibalSW:

One day I will build up enough courage to stake my chances in a forums game and from there I possibly will try a LL some time!

Go ahead and try a forum game.  I was on these boards for more than a year before I tried it, and I was quite pleasantly surprised at how easy it was.  Also, I did have a couple of teachers for my first 2 games, namely Holkann and Perry, who graciously helped me take my first faltering PBF (play by forum) steps.  My hat’s off to them and to all of those who help teach the first-timers how to play and expand our player base.

For the ADS (What exactly does that mean anyway?) vs LL discussion, it seems that many people who prefer to play ADS (myself included), prefer to do so NOT for those times of taking Moscow in a last-gasp 10% chance-of-winning-attack, but specifically FOR all of those times of knowing that if your opponent wants to win all of his attacks, then he had better send better than average forces to the battle, and that is how real warfare was usually conducted, by generals trying to find the weak point in the enemys defenses and attacking, but also planning to hold what was just captured against the defender’s counter-attack.

That said, I do prefer ADS to LL, but maybe there is a happy median.  I mean, as was already stated above, I really don’t believe that anyone who plays ADS, really enjoys getting diced hard, or really enjoys winning the games just because of an opponent’s HORRIBLY BAD LUCK with the dice.  One does want to win as a result of one’s own gameplay, and not soley because of incredibly good or incredibly bad dice.

I will spend some time thinking about it, and perhaps some others can as well, to see if a better dice sytem can be come up with which would satisfy most of the ADS and the LL players, although I do understand that one can NEVER please everyone.

Speeding the things is the only I like about LL. I have a friend who ever roll dices one at the same time, even in 20+ units battles  :-P But maybe even in LL he would still be slow because of the calculations  :cry:

I believe ADS stands for “Automated Dice Server” or something similar

I like the analogy of ADS compared to poker.  In both games, luck plays a part in ultimately determining who wins and who loses.  However, a seasoned player understands this, and makes decisions by weighing the risks involved in each action.  Also, in both cases, you can outplay your opponent and still lose the game.  I don’t have a problem with that because that is the nature of the game.  The outcome of who wins or who loses does not necessarily determine who is the more skilled player in these games.  But that is part of what makes the game interesting, and IMO more appealing to a wider audience.

Based on my short time around these boards, I haven’t gotten the impression that LL players have an elitist attitude.  Perhaps you are referring to people you know personally?

I think both ways of playing have their merits.  I personally enjoy dice more simply because it’s more fun.  The jubilation and frustration that comes from rolling the dice is a large part of why I enjoy AA.

LL is a quick and easy way to calculate how you think the battle will most likely go, and also how many casualties you expect to take.  It can help in making decisions, but I don’t think it ought to take the place throwing dice anymore than card counting should replace cards in black jack.

One last thing, LL does not mean no luck, a die is still rolled and small battles can still go either way, ie 4 inf attacking 1 inf and loosing.  It makes the big battles go the way they should, but still has risk management for deciding ‘do i send the DD and fig, or the DD and bomb vs that german sub that can sink 2 trannies next turn’ as with the first option, you could roll a 6 and him a 1 (has happened to me).

But I do see the merit in dice, it is annoying how powerful planes become in low luck, in how static naval and air builds become (just skirting the odds), and how you can perfectly strafe.  But I’ll take that over getting diced any day in Moscow.

I think Turtle hits the nail on the head. I doubt Patton told von Rundstedt that he would be taking the Siegfried line because he was attacking with 5 infantry and armored divisions to von Runstedts 2. The battle had to be fought and thats what rolling dice is all about.

Thats the problem with the dice in A&A, the dice does not simulate real battles, although it is meant to do this.

If the Vietnam war was fought with ADS, you could have up to 500.000 dead American soldiers (worst case) instead of 60.000. 200.000 causalities is what you could risk if you were playing regular dice (war) game. This is the extreme variation which happens in dice games.

The nam war was lost mainly b/c political factors, not military failures. In A&A there is (still) no option for political factors, just plain simple military units, land sea and air forces fighting against each other. Or in the Gulf war, we could have 50.000 dead allied soldiers instead of 1000(?). In the Iraq war, coalition forces could very well loose 10.000 troops instad of 1000-2000. If NATO was playing with ADS setting in Afghanistan, the political risk would be too high to send ground troops at all. As some battles in real life goes horribly wrong, you don’t loose the whole war b/c of bad luck, which happens in A&A from 1% to 40% of all games played with ADS setting.

I know how people can feel about dice. But I mean, when we play the board game with friends, we have to accept the luck (and it can turn one side or another). If we start playing with simulators, we lose the fun of throwing the Dices, of insulting each other’s luck.

This is my opinion.

Robert