Low Luck Option

[RobEng]

Love low luck...one thing that would really make for even less luck: averaging ic bombing. If there is as gun present 1 iPC is lost (that is being generous to the bomber as the avg net gain is less) and no gun means 4 ipc lost, 3/1 if Caucasus, 2/0 if india or other 3ipc territory. Thoughts? I hate losing a game only due to lucky bombers that never get hit and always roll 5-6

So are you suggesting AA guns would have an additional effect of reducing strategic bombing damage or that there is no chance of an AA gun taking out a plane unless there are 3+ bombers attacking? The former sounds to powerful and the latter seems to devalue the AA guns at the start of the game fairly significantly. I see a debatable logic for low luck in large battles but I don't think that is intent is to give bombers impunity.

[jkizzle]

The intent is to average out results from bombing just as normal battles are averaged in low luck. Seems odd to me that some games are won simply because aa gun never hits and bombers roll 5s and 6s and some are lost because bomber is shot down in first run. Especially in "low luck". AA gun present would result in reduced damage from bombing runs in low luck games, as usually it is only 1 bomber at a time the low luck aspect of aa guns doesnt come into play. Basically it would subtract 2.5 or so from the total since that is the risk of flying a bomber into an aa gun(15/6). The average from hitting a 6+ ipc factory is 3.5 so 3.5-2.5 = 1 ipc lost, but no risk of bomber being lost. I supposed you could compensate the bombing side for not gaining as much ipc transfer (it is advantagous to trade higher levels of ipcs between usa and germany for example), by making it 2 instead of 1. Average lost on a 4 ipc territory is 3, so still giving 1 ipc lost is generous for bombing side. And attacking 3 ipc territory with aa gun shouldnt net anything imo (average of 2.5-2.5 avg bomber ipc loss = 0), but to be generous you could award bombing side 1 ipc loss. So my proposal would make it:
6+ipc terr: 4 ipc lost without gun, 2 with gun
3,4 ipc terr: 3 ipc lost without gun,1 lost with gun

[Hobbes77]

as usually it is only 1 bomber at a time the low luck aspect of aa guns doesnt come into play

The change on strat bombing and bomber cost on Revised to AA1942 changes that a lot.

There's a tactic on Low Luck that I use which is not to do strat bombing until you've massed a force of 6 bombers. Then you start a round the clock bombing campaign of Russia or Germany's ICs: you send the 6 bombers, 1 is shot by the AA, the remaining 5 deal 5*3.5 = 17.5 damage. You keep buying a bomber to replace the losses and you're effectively spending 12 IPC and forcing your opponent to spend more on IC repair (although the power being bombed can take actions to reduce this, but still at some sort of loss).

So effectively you can deal 20 hits of damage to Germany on AA1942 and force it to spend all that money on repairs, depending on the circumstances. On Revised it is completely different: the bomber will cost 15 IPC AND the maximum amount of damage is limited to the territory's value, so on this case Germany would only have to pay immediately a maximum of 10 IPC.

The question I've wondered is that if strat bombing on AA1942 should really use LL because of this tactic - I don't use it often because of the investment necessary on bombers, but once you have them there are also some very other interesting uses for them. But the thing is, it benefits more the attacker than the defender for sure.

[RobEng]

jkizzle, we will consider your suggestion but at this time I am not finding a compelling enough reason to make this happen. I feel like low luck is a modification of the dice rolling for the game where your suggestion is an altering the mechanics of the AA gun vs. the strategic bombing. Without the randomization or wild card effect of bombers having particularly good or bad strategic bombing runs, it can become an exercise of math and economics, as hobbes77's strategy demonstrates.

[Stevorino]

I notice now that you can choose the "SHA1PRNG" randomness algorithm (instead of the standard one) ...

WHat's the difference between the "SHA1PRNG" randomness algorithm and the standard one?

[CaptainColeslaw]

I notice now that you can choose the "SHA1PRNG" randomness algorithm (instead of the standard one) ...

WHat's the difference between the "SHA1PRNG" randomness algorithm and the standard one?

There was a discussion in a different thread (http://www.gametableonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2500&p=17312&hilit=sha1prng#p17312) about this. Put simply it is an alternate dice randomization algorithm. If you want something more in-depth I suggest reading http://www.componentix.com/blog/6.

[jwwunion]

I posted this under the "dice complaining" topic, but I thought it was relevant here too. Food for thought:

I would like to make a comment about the issue of luck in Axis & Allies, which incorporates dice complaining and related issues.

I am a U.S. Army Ranger, and I'm not afraid to say I've "been there, done that." As such, I want to ensure everyone that LUCK IS ABSOLUTELY A FACTOR IN WARFARE. I've experienced many times first hand the old saying, "no plan goes according to plan." The best, most calculated strategy in the world is still subject to Murphy's Law (anything that can go wrong, will), and that is why I think the dice aspect makes this game so realistic and fun. Anywhere you look in history you can find examples of this. Would the battle of Hastings have turned out differently if King Harold didn't catch an unlucky arrow through the eye? What if the unlucky Confederate soldier hadn't dropped the cigar box containing Lee's Antietam battle plan, which was subsequently found by a lucky Union soldier? Accounts of bullets passing through clothing harmlessly abound in every war ever fought. The list goes on and on. So to all the dice complainers and low luck lovers out there - no commander in history has ever had the luxury of avoiding bad luck. Real war is not subject to mathematical precision, and in my view games simulating war shouldn't be either.

[rem400]

Amen!

[bb82]

I love the dice and how it makes each game unique. LL is just too static, more about how much time you will put into figuring out everything (work), and just not appropriate in a wargame such as A&A. Regular dice is about trying to figure out when risk is appropriate and if you can afford it going bad. It is also about adapting to the present situation since no battle should be predictable.

[ravepig]

I can see where people would like the low luck option, but it just doesn't seem that realistic to me. In real war, there are a lot of events taking place that do depend on luck. For example, when you read about the invasion of Normandy--there were a lot of uncontrollable variables that had to be just so for success. When playing strategy games like A&A or risk, I like to think of the dice rolls representing those things we can't control: weather conditions, troop morale, troop health, supplies, quality of training, and yes, sometimes just plan dumb luck. Makes for an exciting game (and I say all this having just lost a game of A&A partly because I rolled horribly!)

[DarthCrow]

I Agree with the luck factor. I've never been able to explain why bad rolls can be just that to my friends. Say, 6 tanks invade 3 infantry, and all the tanks miss, but all the infantry hit. It sucks when you are the tanks, but if all the infantry were "dug in" it can be explained logically. I like the idea of Low luck, but I have to agree with the fact that there is just to many vairables in war to make it absolute.

[rockismyreligion]

I Agree with the luck factor. I've never been able to explain why bad rolls can be just that to my friends. Say, 6 tanks invade 3 infantry, and all the tanks miss, but all the infantry hit. It sucks when you are the tanks, but if all the infantry were "dug in" it can be explained logically. I like the idea of Low luck, but I have to agree with the fact that there is just to many vairables in war to make it absolute.

Those three infantry had bazookas.

[UtzChips]

I Agree with the luck factor. I've never been able to explain why bad rolls can be just that to my friends. Say, 6 tanks invade 3 infantry, and all the tanks miss, but all the infantry hit. It sucks when you are the tanks, but if all the infantry were "dug in" it can be explained logically. I like the idea of Low luck, but I have to agree with the fact that there is just to many vairables in war to make it absolute.

Low Luck is a ridiculous option as far as I am concerned & I'll explain why:

Let's say that Japan has just captured Moscow but Germany is under immense pressure from the Brits & USA.

Germany has say 34 inf 8 art & 8 tanks & 4 fighters left.

Because Japan concentrated on capturing Moscow, Allies own majority of IPCs in Africa, so the Brits are healthy & USA has a ton of trannys to ship units & hit WE & SE in coordination with the Brits.

Germany is not going to be able to keep taking back both SE & WE until Japan [who has 20+ tanks in Moscow] arrives.

So Germany needs to strafe WE and/or SE.

Say the Allies have 14 inf & 6 tanks in WE.

Using low luck, Germany simply hits it with 18 inf 8 art & 4 tanks, hits WE twice & is GUARANTEED to be able to withdraw after the 2nd roll leaving the Allies with 1 tank 82% of the time & 2 tanks just under 18% of the time.

In addition, the Allies IPC loss is greater than Germany's as G only loses infantry.

Using regular dice, Germany is going to take WE 41% of the time and have all those offensive units vulnerable to a 1/2 punch, when all it is earning is about 30 IPCs, which is only enough to replace the infantry it loses on the guaranteed strafes using low luck.

Or, a simplier scenario:

Russia has 1 inf in the Ukraine & Germany wants it back. In low luck, you go in with 2 inf & 1 fighter & you are guaranteed to kill the lone Russian inf about 99.83% of the time & will lose both of your inf only 2.25% of the time.

You will NEVER lose your fighter.

Using regular dice, you lose both your infantry 5.35% of the time. AND you only kill the lone inf 99.32% of the time, if, when the scenario arises where G misses 2x in a row & R hits 2x in a row, G is still willing to try and kill the inf with just his/her fighter & will lose that fighter about 1.36% of the time. Something that will not occur in LL [according to the dice calculator].

Low luck allows Germany to save resources & build quicker for a stack in Karelia or the Ukraine.

The only way I would be swayed into believing that LL may be a viable option, is if bb82 [who has devoted many an hour devising his conservative style of play] were to play 30 different experts within 5 levels of him & he not be able to win at least 60%. Since the majority of his opponents would be playing a more aggressive style, they would be prone to dice failure.

I'll tell ya' all a lil' story I like to tell:

Rockismyreligion was a strong proponent [according to his posts in the forum back in the day] of Russia needing to attack the Ukraine on T1.

So, imagine my SURPRISE, when I was granted the privilege of partnering with him & demandred against 2 experts. Majorblitz was playing Germany & Rocky was playing Russia.

On his opening turn, Rocky only hits Belo & WR, which is bb82's opening move!

I was shocked!!!

I asked him what was up with that, since it contradicts everything he has said in the past in the forum.

He said that when you are up against a German opponent who can see several moves deep, hitting the Ukraine is too risky, because it is a "do or die" situation. If you end up with bad rollz, the German player is going to know EXACTLY how to MAXIMIZE his advantage of you getting a less than favorable outcome on Russia's opening move.

And, I'm not talkin' about getting diced bad. I'm talkin' about losing 3 more inf in WR than you should & just having 1 tank left in the Ukraine.

I believe we should have bb82 play 2 games each against 30 different experts with him as the Allies and see how he does with his conservative play.

I say 2 games each, so that if one of the experts plays something unexpected, he will be prepared for it in game 2.

Then we will know if there is a way to truly minimize the randomness of regular dice.

Keep in mind that the bid cannot be more than G5, because if his opponent isn't willing to take the Axis for less than G6, he will jump at the chance to take the Axis for G5 & feels his chances of winning are much better than playing the Allies against a G6 bid.

[rockismyreligion]

Now that's an interesting theory there, Utz. Bidding should then just be set at 5 for the Axis, and each player will take a turn on one side.

[bb82]

Now that's an interesting theory there, Utz. Bidding should then just be set at 5 for the Axis, and each player will take a turn on one side.

For regular dice I think that g5 is even too high. Sometimes g5 can even be preferable over g6.

If G1 tries for Egypt then it only needs to take it to make for a good game. G1 doesn't need to take Egypt with 4+ leftover.. g4 is plenty. Even if it fails the game still depends on your opponent and a few other opening battles as to how bleak the situation looks for the axis.