Posts made by trihero

Something that exterminates the extreme value results like LL does, but doesn’t confine you to only slightly marginal battle shifts.

I already showed you how LL does not have marginal battle shifts. The Baltic attack ranges from all airforce surviving to all airforce dead with 2 German boats alive. Attacking Belo with 3 inf 2 fig ranges from taking with 2 inf to merely clearing it. Attacking Pearl ranges from taking no casualties to losing 2 boats. A transport can still beat a bomber or a battleship easily. 2 inf 1 fig can easily lose to 1 inf. There is plenty of variability, and no such thing as planning 100% in LL. You can kiss your pre-plan goodbye if the Kwang transport beats up your destroyer/carrier, or if the Baltic whoops your butt, etc.

We need a HL option - Half-ass Luck  :roll:

Also reading your example I am more confused than ever. I thought you group all units that hit on a 2 according to your original post, and then in this last example you gave you grouped supported infantry differently than artillery, yet both of them hit on 2.

So ACTUALLY for 18 infantry 10 artillery 4 armor, that’s

8 infantry = 8points/6= 1 hit +2
10 supported inf 10 artillery =40points/6 =  6 hits +4
4 armor = 2 hits

So the variance is 9-11, not 9-12.

And in case you’re going to say I’m missing the forest for the tree, what I would do in that case is send 1 artillery less. That brings the variance to 9-10 hits. Still a very precise strafe, it’s less sure than low luck but it still brings it within 1-2 inf, and there’s still zero chance of overtaking the territory, because there are 11 units, and the max I could hit is 10. Zero chance.

How do you iron out that in ADS you have to compensate for both good and bad luck in strafing? LLADS is far from perfect in trying to bring that element of ADS into the game, all it does is make LL slightly less precise, but there’s still no risk. You can still do ridiculously precise strafes with zero risk of overtaking the territory.

I clearly brought up that your solution does not solve the biggest problem - precise strafing. You can still send 60 inf at 11 inf. Or 6 inf at 2 inf. Or 6 inf 4 arm against 4 inf. You can still do the thing where you send 1 inf + 4 figs at 2 inf, something you complained a lot about LL.

I see where it makes combination units less easy to use, but it’s still not very difficult, as in the examples I gave.

It’s an interesting solution, but not a perfect solution.

It still doesn’t fix the example that you complained about. You complained about you not wanting 60 infantry vs 11 infantry to perfectly strafe out 10 inf, but your solution doesn’t correct this.

Well I think you are spending too much money on navy, and I question how your subs are going to pay back for themselves in convoy raiding. The US is spending 100% on navy, and with naval industry/reinforced carriers your suicidal kaitens aren’t going to help a whole lot. That’s still at best sending a 7 IPC to 66% of the time kill a 9 IPC unit (destroyer is the best cost ratio you can suicide with, since reinforced carriers are about immune to single blasts and double blasts has a low success rate and also is only an even trade in IPCs).

Most Powerful Battleships is good, but you have to follow up diligently with say a battleship per round if you want to create the unstoppable strafe happy navy.

Super subs doesn’t help a whole lot on defense (it doesn’t add any punch on defense in AARE), am I assuming that you’re getting is just to force the Americans to bring in a couple extra destroyers to counter the lowered detection rolls?

I think it’s going to be extremely difficult to maintain a defensive position outside of SZ60, how do you propose to continually raid the US? I think Germany could probably do it on E. US if they’re keeping UK suppressed, but it might be a tad hard with the US reinforced cars/naval industry pumping out 100% navy while you still have to buy something for land, eventually you can’t keep up the raiding.

I’m looking for a better way to determine strategy viability where you cannot do 60 infantry vs 11 infantry and know you will hit 10 in the first round and can retreat leaving him with 1 guy left, but where you can also avoid having 13 attacks all misses while defenders rolling at 1 score 100% accuracy.

Your method doesn’t fix this. 60 inf/ 6 = 10 hits. How does your LLADS fix the ridiculous precision strafing? Adding up like numbers doesn’t help this since you can still count enough like numbers to do it precisely.

If you’re attempting to “fix” LL more towards ADS, I think you would try to fix the most blatant problem - precision strafing. Personally I think the dispersion is already quite there in LL in small battles, but I can see how in LL you can do ridiculous strafes like 6 inf vs 2 inf that you would never consider in ADS due to a high probability of taking it in that case.

That’s why the original guy who posted it and Imperious Leader has the idea that I like - keep the base as low luck maybe for all combats instead of just 2 per round, but you get a number of combat events in which you force the opponent to roll it out instead of doing the LL method, which keeps the players honest in terms of not abusing precision strafing. That fixes the most blatant “problem” of LL which is ridiculously accurate strafing, by putting the fear that the opponent will force you to ADS it.

By the way, I’m not convinced at all that the low luck system gives you a formulaic way to win. There are plenty of lucky/unlucky situations that can add up. A transport can still win against a battleship. The Baltic fleet can die without hitting a single UK plane, or wipe them all out with 2 boats left. The Russian Triple fails almost 50% of the time in LL. I’m not convinced that it’s as formulaic as you make it out to be, because the remainder dice give a lot of leeway. Why would your situation be any different than what LL is already? LL already has swing, you just want to add more swing arbitrarily?

I think Axis Roll is right, you don’t have to majorly invest in navies or split actions with Germany/Japan, Aretaku.

All Germany has to do is build 1 carrier on G1, and slowly add a sub per round while looking at the UK’s response. It’s even cheaper if you use wolfpacks. The UK should have a horrendous time, because they are going to be immensely divided - they have to first field a navy that’s defensively more powerful than what Germany can bring (and Germany can bring a lot with divebombers/wolfpacks), but simultaneously worry about getting into Africa because they are losing a lot of income there. And as if that weren’t bad enough, the German navy is further bleeding their income, up to $8 per round. So UK has to liberate Africa, defeat the German navy, and get troops to Europe all by itself without US assistance. That is going to be tough with such a small income, if not impossible due to also having to maintain an IC out in Aus/India. Each $7 sub that Germany adds is a $9-$10 destroyer that the UK has to match, and that $7 sub is also bleeding income at the same time. And that $10 destroyer isn’t helping you liberate Africa unless you then also spend some time teching, more money not directly overcoming the German navy.

And with Japan, I would almost certainly focus on the land war, because Japan needs some income to counter the US’s convoy raiding and natural high income. Japan’s navy can hold out defensively for a few rounds, giving you time to dump lots of Banzai onto the mainland. By the time Japan needs to add more navy, then it has most likely broken through on the ground war too so you have the income to match the US, and thankfully you don’t need your fighters as much on land due to the Banzai push. I would keep adding cheap Kaiten subs for a while, and when things go south of the border, then run away with Japan with the goal of migrating to the Mediterranean and then on to convoy raid the UK eventually  :evil:

One thing that has become extremely tricky is where to build a complex with Japan in a KJF, because if you build it in one of the original Orange territories, it can/will get convoy raided at some point, which sucks!

I never quite understood no luck, so I assume that if you send an inf vs an inf the battle would never end? Similarly if you send a sub vs a transport, you could never win?

I think someone already came up with a compromise they posted a while back, something like every turn you choose 2 battles that are low luck, while the rest is ADS (so if you did Russian Triple, two of the attacks are LL, the other one is ADS).

And the twist is that the opponent gets 3 declarations in which you’re forced to roll it in ADS as opposed to LL. So if it comes down to trying to abuse a strafe, the opponent can force you roll it and you get burned.

Personally I could probably live with that kind of compromise. You get 2 sure battles per turn so not EVERYTHING can go badly, but also if you try to abuse the low luck nature in strafing the opponent can call you out and force you to roll it ADS.

I agree with Axis Roll. You should play a conservative Japan, the same thing you would do in KJF in Revised. Both sides are stronger, Japan has some interesting NAs up its sleeve and so does the US with nas/convoy raiding, but the basic remains the same.

He’s spot on with Germany being the bear. You have a huge incentive to keep a large German navy (convoy raiding the UK), and if you keep that up with large gains in Africa, you might be able to run over both UK/Russia.

For Japan, they have great ways to play conservative. Banzai infantry gives your land war much needed firepower/flexibility, you can use less fighters than normal and worry less about picket inf + aa guns. +1 dice point to a cheap unit is a very powerful bonus (yeah lasts one round, but that is often the most important round, and when you think about it most battles don’t last more than 1-2 rounds anyways). Kaitens gives you some much needed naval fodder, and in case those carriers aren’t reinforced, then it’s time to give the American’s a huge headache by suiciding into them. I would probably pick those two NAs. Banzai to break through the land war, Kaitens to give you cheap naval fodder.

I would also at some point consider going with lots of heavy bombers. That really keeps the US honest, because it is a very hard unit to counter navally speaking. Between cheap subs and heavy bombers, you could tie up the American’s navy for a while. Then hopefully Germany is going nuts, and if it isn’t doing well, then hopefully it’s more of a dice issue or a strategic mistake, and if it’s neither of those, then it’s just time to up the bid.

The hardest part I think in AARE is that the US can conduct convoy raids on Japan; this really encourages a big sub strategy using naval industry/reinforced carriers. But on the flip side, Germany can convoy raid UK. You have to adjust to AARE’s ruleset, because it’s designed not to be exactly like AAR. German navy + victory cities are the biggest things to keep in mind, because those are the things that give the Allies headaches they didn’t in Revised.

Wow, you missed the point. I would rather have the US take out that navy with their starting 3 fig 1 bom rather than have Russia build 3 additional fighters just to take it out.

Nothing worse than players who makes high risk moves that fail with the sure knowledge if the dice goes against them then they can just start again.

Personally I don’t mind these players and I am sort of like that myself. Sure you can start again, but you just gave yourself a loss. If you keep doing that (waiting for good dice otherwise forfeiting) your record isn’t going to be very good.

It’s exactly the same as low luck.

The greatest difference is precision strafing, while a close second is small number battles being more decisive than they usually are. But overall I like it. It cuts out the “oh noes I gots bad dice therefore you didn’t really beat me” outlook.

Whoah, how’d you miss the low luck debate?

Thanks for the info Switch, boy did I have some misconceptions  :-P

Equally amusing is bombers killing fighters, I guess the fighter flew straight under the bomber so the bomb would catch it ;P

Really boggling is the transport killing the battleship. From what I remember Larry Harris wants to make it so transports defend at 0 and can’t be taken except as the final naval casualties for the next version of A&A, which IMO is a great transition. No more fodder tps randomly killing planes and battleships -_-