@farmboy said in Low Luck explained (& advertised):
Obviously everyone will have their own preferences, and that is fine.
But I quite like the dice. This is because I find that having to account for probabilities makes the game more interesting and more challenging. I think it contributes to the strategy of the game (with the proviso that now and then you do just get diced and that sucks) Secondly, that sometimes one loses battles that they would normally likely win means that one has to adjust their play to unexpected circumstances…
I don’t think I’d find the game that interesting if I knew in advance that every battle I had committed slightly more than my opponent to was going to be a victory, or avoided all defensive combats where I knew I would lose.
It would also seem to me that low luck games would massively favour the axis without a massive bid since the axis is the side that has the capacity to expand in the early game and would have more freedom to do so knowing that it could choose 100% battles at less cost.
Also, although I don’t want to get stuck on this as the game is only very loosely a historical one (and so its rules and components should be judged more by what they add to gameplay than to historical accuracy), but there are plenty of battles where the side that should have been able to easily win lost because of factors that were not able to be calculated in advance. Bad weather, idiot general, etc. Dice allow for that sort of situation.
Yes bad dice = morale issues, supplies, leadership etcetc but I am looking at where if the dice go real bad it’s restricted but not the place to discuss since this is probably off topic