Prerequisite for Dice Complainers

[BKBrawler]

LOL changing my mind. Just had the truly most remarkable day of dicings. Two as Allies doing a conservative Belo/WR opening, and a third as Germans mauled before it was even their turn.

Live Game #1: I'm Axis G6.
Opponent opens with Ukraine/WR- loses 2 units in the two attacks total hitting 7/9 in ukraine first swing. Germany wins Egypt with only 2 tanks alive (using bomber in attack). He UK counters Egypt without losing a unit. I keep playing, going heavy infantry buys, stackings stacks in early turtle mode. Mid-to end game he starts landing units in WE, Karelia, trading Belo, Ukr. Three rounds in a row his infantry defends in europe at above 50%: 9/16, 7/13, and 10/16. What in the world can you do against such reckless dice? lol

Live Game #2: I'm Allies G5.
Fairly even opening, I go with Belo/WR. Nothing crazy. Allies land in Algeria. UK 2 inf, 2 tanks, US 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 fig, 1 aa gun. G2 he counters Algeria with 4 figs, 3 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks. The aa guns miss, and he scores 8 hits, I defend 1. German build that turn includes a carrier and a transport place off SE with the BB. Rough, but nowhere close to a game breaker. Russia is very strong because of the german builds going in the sea and is pulling in over 30. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine that I could lose this game at this point. Japan is moving well but Russia is stacked to hit it hard and hold it out of its territories. To that end, Russia has 7 inf, 1 tank, 2 fighters pound on 5 japan inf in Yakut (with 2 japan infantry in bury and only a bomber that could reach in a counter attack). Russia blanks, Japan hits 1. Second swing, Russia blanks, Japan hits 4. Russia just went 0 for 19 with 13 inf, 2 tank, and 4 fighter dice. Russia has 5 inf pulled off the table. Rough, but ya know, not the worst thing. Not a game breaker yet. Russia still very strong, Allies smoking through Africa; very, very recoverable. A couple of turns later, he has 2 figs sitting on the german cv, with the bb, and transport. UK has 7 figs and 1 bomber. Great opportunity to kill a couple of german fighters, kill the transports pulling up troops to ukraine and the accompanying bombardment from the bb. UK attacks, gets 2. He gets 3. Ouch, but very foreseeable. Still within tolerable limits. I'm willing to come out of this battle with only a fig and bomber, np, which would be in the single digits of results. I would still be in lead, as I imagine it at least. Second UK swing, 1 hit. He gets all red. Good grief. Two rounds in with 12 fighter dice and 2 bomber dice and I have 3 hits to he has 6. Brutal. This one hurts. There were actually a couple of others, the details of which I don't quite remember so I don't want to inaccurately lay them out, but of the 5 "big" battles we fought, four of which I was heavily favored in (his attack on Algeria being the only one he initiated and which he was favored), all ended not just in victories for him, but resounding, overwhelming victories. Individually, any one of those battles were recoverable. In fact, part of the reason I was willing to engage them is that I had amassed a considerable lead, and in the normal course of attacking, defending, moving, etc. situations were presented whereby one would normally expect to attack. In other words, it was the right play. But dang dem dice.

PBEM game: I'm Allies G6.
I open with a conservative Belo/WR opening. Belo goes okay, 1 unit survives. WR, I get mauled. I survives with 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tanks. Next turn, he goes all-out blitzing. Takes Arch, Karelia, Cau, and WR. Looks like he loses 5 units. I love the aggressive play by7 my opponent at this point, but sheesh, what's a brother to do when even conservative moves are getting creamed?

So I once again look to either a ML option or LL for the first round or two and then switch to regular.

Now I'm sure there are those who have all sorts of helpful knowledge about the game, and how it should be played, and what should be done different, but the fact is that at least two of these games involved first round conservative play. There really is not much else that could be done other than not doing any attacks. And perhaps some will say I was forced to do an attack and should reevaluate the moves that lead to there, etc. but I will counter that 1) Most of the battles were not make or break- they were 80-90% odds on for me and even if I failed I would still be in it, but that a string of such battles going the same way becomes too much, and 2) by that thinking, all attacks are "forced" and the only way to not be "forced" into a battle is to never get into one!

Also, I am fairly confident in my own skills. I've shown well in tournaments, played in the ladder league champion's division a couple of months, enjoy games against a host of other expert level competition, can't remembered the last time I played anyone with less than 300 or so games played, and still have several hundred wins at a 75% or so win rate. In other words, I know what I'm talking about. It just seems to me that perhaps the dice DO have too much influence at times in the game. I think I'm back to thinking I'd like to see those mitigated early so that the game can have a bit more strategy before the dice intervene and decide a winner.

So those are my anecdotes for the day. Perhaps my thoughts have been swayed by all three happening on the same day, but I think that if that's even possible, no matter improbable, then maybe there's something that can be tweaked to increase the overall enjoyment of players who don't like LL but don't want crazy dice stepping in from time to time and deciding things.

I'm out!

[bmaster]

I open with a conservative Belo/WR opening. Belo goes okay, 1 unit survives. WR, I get mauled. I survives with 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tanks.

Yeah, even with conservative play if your opponent rolls hot you've still been diced R1, and if then opts to get aggressive and doesn't get unlucky, there's not much you can do about it.

[mmd1]

i'm with brawler. the dice may or not be broken, but if i was a new player to gto this month there would have been another thread about how the dice is broken and/or i would have departed never to return. it has been quite unbelievable. failure of 98%, 95% attacks on grand scales. several in the first or second most extreme ipc differential result that is one the calcs and one off the charts. total success of a 5% attack by an opponent - 6 inf wiped out 2 inf and 3 ftrs. i have had a couple of astonishing successes in suicide attacks that i would never have hoped to get. there has been just one game without a major dice intervention so far - 1 out of more than 10. and by major i mean something very far out of the ordinary.

the worst part is that, after a week and a bit of playing 42 with all the risky attacks that seem to be part and parcel of most 42 games i was looking forward to some good solid games on the revised ladder only to be dice-raped and in a losing position by G2 and G3 in my two games so far. this is not what i want from my gaming on gto. i want the chance to improve my play and my strategies by being involved in games that are not decided by dice. as it stands now i rarely have a clue if a changed strategy is effective or not. i don't know what tourney i have to play in to get such an experience. i do know that middle luck would help enormously though. we have already established that this would not be everyone's cup of tea, just like low luck isn't mine. but it would make such a difference to my enjoyment of playing A&A on this site that i just have to ask for it again.

[UtzChips]

I have played almost 1200 games [most didn't go 2/3 rounds in the early dayz] and I so hated the dice here at GTO. I mean just when you think you've got it.......well, you ain't got it!

Just last night, I was in a game with IronWolf as a partner [thanx for that 300th win by the way] and we were lookin' good, all we needed to do is have 1 tank left standing in the Ukraine so we could keep WR stacked. The "average" result is that we have 3 inf 2 tanks & 2 ftrs left.

Our chance of success 95.xx% and we couldn't do it! We had to pull outta' WR and struggle for some time b4 recovering.

Then, when we had a FAT stack in Karelia and were thinkin' we were set for 1/2/3 punch in EE, mostly because we were tired although the numbers were there, The Brits hit 1st & Germany rolled so much RED on the 1st roll !! OMG

Had to withdraw my planes.

Problem is: We didn't have to do it. Even though the battle calc showed us a very good favorite, we shoulda' been patient & kept stackin' Karelia like AFATCAT waitin' to pounce!!

Now I now where AFatCat came up with his name!

Now, I understand that 6 inf killing: 2 inf & 3 fighters sounds ridiculous, but it happens 5.35% of the time, so it is far from from being outrageous! In fact, the 6 inf has the chance of having one still living 4.63% of the time.

And this happens every game if you pay attention. It's just that it happens when it doesn't really matter.

For instance, this reminds me of the time my opponent attacked my tranny with his battleship & I got a hit 1st & he missed 5 times in a row! That's .33*.33*.33*.33*.33 = 0.39% chance of occurrence!

He hit on his 6th roll, and my tranny didn't, so all was well that ends well & we had a good laugh together

0.39% chance is a helluva' lot lower than the 5.35% chance of 6 inf killin' 2 inf & 3 fighters.

And, how many times in a game, do you see the battleship miss & the 6 inf 2 tanks 3 planes also miss on the 1st roll? Or some outrageous group of units rollin' all white? I see it quite often, but the end result is about average, so it doesn't mean anything and you forget about it.

There is a reason many experts will tell you that a game lost primarily because of the dice, is a 'rare bird."

There has to be a strategy that allows for a "Plan B" when things do not go well. NecOne must have found it. He wrote all about it. It's in the strategy forum. Not the specific strategy, but his approach to the game in general.

NecOne won the Champ's Division 2 cycles in a row. It's my understand that he doesn't hit Ukraine with Russia on T1.

Jkizzle, took 2nd place to NecOne on tiebreaks and the following cycle he went 8-0 and won.

When I first came here, I thought I understood dice & its randomness. I think I did, I just wasn't tuned in to taking a beating at a crucial time by the dice or having the discipline to be patient [as in the game with IronWolf] after 4+ hrs of play & you see a win in sight & forget how cruel the dice can be.

It's like bmaster said [in so many words] : You can't expect to win every game!

When the players who have been grinding it out [and I mean the ones who have been at it hard core], cycle after cycle, in the Champ's Division & Division 1/2 start complaining about the dice algorithm being screwed up, then I'll think we might have an issue.

I can see how someone, if they really know the game, will still only expect to win 80%-93% of their games against the best.

I'm still searchin' for that "perfect strategy" but I tell you what: I can't bring myself to play LL to see where the best laid plans are. There's just no excitement in it and I'm an andrenalin' junkie!

Trust me, when I say: I feel your pain! Hardly a week goes by I don't wanna' throw something at the monitor! About a month ago I threw 5 dice at it that I was rollin' around in my hands, 5 hrs into a game when the stress was up there.

NecOne has written [in the strategy forum] about his conservative approach to the game & how he was successful in the ladder league.

If the dice burns someone out........they can always find plenty of hard-core experts in the Low Luck Ladder League. Those are some tough hombres!

Enjoy, and may the dice be fair!!

[mmd1]

i'm a quite conservative player and i usually let half chances pass by - probably a flaw in my play if anything. an 85% battle is risky for me to take. these days i rarely use a calc unless i just want to make sure of the timing of an attack to win a game. these are battles judged by eye and then when i got hammered i checked the odds to make sure i hadn't made a mistake. nope, they were all over 95%.

i think the dice are fair and they are as good as they can be made online . i just think a middle luck dice option would make for better competitive play. i don't want to win or lose by a dicing so frequently. i have offered rematches to players in the ladder when the were badly diced.

if it is good enough to use for playtesting an A&A game in development i think it should be considered for competitvie play here.

i'm not giving up on the games, but my opponents don't need to take any risks whatsoever to win now whereas i have to take plenty.

[bb82]

Viewing the dice in a poor light AND being vocal about it can easily breed more contempt for the dice in such a competitive place where egos are rarely tweaked. For example in the champ division many of them play the same small pool of players. I also notice most of them chatting about the dice. I just view that more as part of the trap from playing the same pool of players where groupthink can set in rather than that the dice are the issue. They are also all good players. When your good it can be very easy to look for other factors as to why a loss. Although that can be true at all skill levels, I think it is more so at the top where players' egos can harden and go unchecked. They also generally play a huge amount of games in a relatively short period of time which can naturally force a player to start being more about efficiency than about patience (same as in live, ftf, etc).

But all of this stems from how I view dice in general. I just never blame it, therefore I always look for another reason even if a "lame" reason like perhaps the above is.

i'm a quite conservative player and i usually let half chances pass by - probably a flaw in my play if anything. an 85% battle is risky for me to take.

It's only a flaw if you perceive it as a flaw. For example even if I get good dice at the start from my opponent's opening I'll usually continue to be conservative to try to make the most of those early dice later when I feel more comfortable with risk. You certainly would have a better chance in your bulk games by taking immediate advantage of their dice, but in some games you will just get diced too and lose all of that advantage if not more. I prefer to exercise patience and give up some of that advantage to make my win for that particular game more assured (rather than think about % over a bulk of games).

It does depend on RL and a lot of other factors too. I try to play each game like it's the only one that matters but sometimes it's just not possible.


Try not to make it about the %. I rarely even use aacalc anymore (although in part because I have a good eye about battles now) except after battles if I was really curious. Making it about % in regular dice games only leads to getting upset about the dice. % says nothing of variance and most battles in the game are somewhat important, meaning there will be plenty of "dicings" EVERY game, especially when you look at the subjective nature of the dice. If you make it all about % then your outlook on battles, and the game in general, will be all about %.

IF you want to play conservative (you certainly don't have to) then instead of thinking in terms of % consider thinking in terms of "need" and "afford".

By "need" I mean do you think the game situation is forcing you to do a battle? If you honestly believe so then you should probably hit it. This is very subjective and it will change over time the more you play unless you stopped trying to tweak your game or only think of % since then the "ideal" play will eventually always be used. At that point it can be easy to view all losses due to the dice. Each game allows the opportunity for change as along as your willing.

By "afford" I mean do you think you still have a decent shot at the game if you do something AND it goes real bad? If you honestly believe so then hitting it is more of an option if you like the "risk" part of that battle (i.e. perhaps you think you are likely to win it or like the position that it might bring). If you don't think you can afford it going bad then don't hit it unless the "need" part is the issue (i.e. I don't hit ukr on R1 because I don't believe my allies can afford it going bad, I don't like how it makes WR even more important, I don't like how it makes R more susceptible to axis aggression, and I certainly don't think I need to do it in low bidded games like I typically play of g4ish).

You also need to look at the "need" and "afford" part as a mix. The need part trumps the afford part though. Knowing if you can "afford" something going bad is usually the easy part. The "need" part is the tricky area and imo why so many complain about the dice. They think they need to do things and play accordingly without ever really rethinking that need. They look at all areas except the need (i.e. dice, openings, territories, icps, etc). They would rather look solely at the dice than even think about what their opponent did in the first place (i.e. maybe the opponent went crazy aggressive and got a really rare outcome). I view the dice as blinders to all the other areas that you actually have control over.


The above is mainly about my risk-management style. The last thing I'm really thinking about is % when I'm doing battles. In general I like to conserve my forces on key areas until I think I'm ready to "dance" with my opponent. I'll usually retreat than allow too much risk on my opponents turn. During my turn I have the control. At the start I'm not ready, and play very conservative usually, because I don't like small battles deciding games (huge variance with outcomes where small sways can have a drastic impact on the game). I just don't prefer quick games either.

It always just depends though and it's all so subjective. It's all about preferences and how you view the game. Just try to always be open to change and you will constantly be viewing the game in different lights and find very dynamic play. If you do decide to start viewing regular dice more through the "need" and "afford" part then just try to always be open to changing your mind with how you define them. Never blame the dice. Always look for a way that you think might have improved the situation (I always find one and you can too). That will allow the way you define "need" and "afford" to constantly be evolving. The more experience with longer games will also naturally change the way you define "need" and "afford".

It all should be about "fun" too. You win some and lose some. Even if I truly believe that the risk is all my opponent's, and the battles are going well for him, I'd still be making the most of it and looking for ways to learn/improve rather than ever blame the dice. You can do nothing about dice unless you play LL but even then I believe that players will still complain about the dice if they view the game in a certain light. The only thing you really have control over is your own viewpoint. It's a lot more constructive to tweak that than to keep looking at the dice. You have no control over what the next dice will be. That's the whole point of dice and why they work so well for a game like A&A. After all, battles are not predictable.


I HAVE NEVER LOST DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVED WAS SOLELY THE DICE. In such a long and complex game it is impossible to play "flawlessly". Especially if how you define "flawlessly" is always evolving. Granted, my viewpoint is different than most. It's all about how you look at things.

[BKBrawler]

I think Utz and bb are missing the point here. The idea is not that small chances don't happen, of course they do. Roll the dice enough times and crazy things will happen. The point is that in Axis and Allies you WILL roll the dice enough times during the course of a game and crazy **** will happen. Not everyone wants to see that every game. ML basically brings that to a close. So while I applaud Utz's abilities to figure out odds, and I think it laudable how bb is constantly looking to his game to improve, I fail to see how either vision is mutually exclusive to the option of middle luck.

Short, sweet, and to the mother **** point. I am on fire!

[bb82]

I think Utz and bb are missing the point here. The idea is not that small chances don't happen, of course they do. Roll the dice enough times and crazy things will happen. The point is that in Axis and Allies you WILL roll the dice enough times during the course of a game and crazy **** will happen. Not everyone wants to see that every game. ML basically brings that to a close. So while I applaud Utz's abilities to figure out odds, and I think it laudable how bb is constantly looking to his game to improve, I fail to see how either vision is mutually exclusive to the option of middle luck.

Short, sweet, and to the mother **** point. I am on fire!

ML was never my point. My point was how the game is viewed in general. Even in ML you will still get "dicings" that can be viewed as what decides each game. Even in LL you can still view the dice as what decided every game. Even in NL (no luck does have an implementation) game flow could just be seen as broke and the "cause" for losses. It's all about preferences, philosophies, and how you view aspects of the game in general. As for most things, this is all subjective and to each person to answer for themselves. I just think it's more constructive to rant about and tweak things that we actually have control over. We have no control over what the next dice will be.

As for ML specifically, they already mentioned that they aren't doing it anytime soon. They aren't doing anything with A&A atm and that doesn't look to be changing anytime soon. So it's either LL or regular dice for now.

[UtzChips]

I am not missin' bkbrawler's point about mid-luck dice. Incorporate it, and a player [so long as he plays an optimal opening] will never have to muster up the mettle to try and pull one out when the chips are down 'cause he got diced in the opening.

I am one who has surrendered early, because, I shouldn't be playin' in the 1st place, cause I'm tired, or some other extrinsic reason, however, when I'm in the correct frame of mind, I'm not surrendering.

For those more interested in increasing that win rate from 82% to 85%, than the experience of random dice, "mid-luck" may be for you. Many are interested in increasing it to 85% but also enjoy the rush of regular dice.

However, I can see how someone who has played a whole bunch of games and knows the game inside and out, might not be interested in musterin' up the mettle to try & recover from a bad first round. Others enjoy the struggle.

For those of us whose interest is not only in learnin' optimal play, but just as much enjoys the adrenalin' rush of random dice, "mid-luck" is as boring as watchin' the grass grow.

bkbrawler reminds me of the look on Tiger Woods' face [and others], who spend many more hours practicing than competing, is having a helluva' good weekend, hit an absolutely beautiful drive, puttin' it right where he wanted to, only to find that it's sittin' in a divot hole. "mid-luck" dice in golf, would be the equivalent of Tiger being able to drop from that nasty divot hole & be rewarded for his excellent shot!

I doubt that one who professes to "mid-luck" dice could ever learn to enjoy playing golf by the USGA rules, because they can be so cruel when you're playin' so well and get unlucky.

Now, me, well I love golf [by the book] & I am WAY TOO sexy for my 37.86% win rate, however, I am not going to switch to "mid-luck" just to try and get it above 50% someday.

But that's just me.

[mmd1]

both attacks i'm talking about were must do in the context of the game - in response to an opponents mistake in fact. one i was ready to hit germany from north and south and both WE and SE were lightly defended. the other the allies had made a half-hearted effort to stack in persia but germany had a chance to leave egypt early to take it out and provide the basis for an axis blockade there instead.

that was the most frustrating part - mistakes by my opponents were turned into cunning moves thanks to an 0.01% dice outcome. 6 inf had a 2% chance to survive but 5 survived and took out my stack in two turns. that is what i call a straw breaking the camels back.

i am of the opinion that middle luck will feel much like normal luck and quite different from low luck.it should just cut out those very extreme results.

and 6 inf taking out 2 inf and 3 ftrs - tell me with a straight face that won't make you see red.

i also acknowledge that such bad dice are an achilles heel in my play. after getting such a shocking result i will frequently muck up the rest of my turn unless i walk away from the computer for a long while).

[UtzChips]

mmd1,

Let my opponent kill my 2 inf & 3 ftrs with 6 inf & there is a good chance I bust my fist up against the monitor if my blood pressure is already up, 4 hrs deep into a live game! [just kiddin'! maybe an object though]

You didn't say 5 inf survived! Now that's freakin' outrageous!

I am not qualified to comment on the situation in Germany. I don't know if you couldn't wait until you built up enough resources to really pound 'em. Or, if you did wait, Germany would have built up it's own defense to the point where you lost the opportunity.

I can recall a recent ladder league game, where I was being schooled by a much better player, with a decisive advantage & he shifted stacks to hit Berlin, however, 85% of my FAT stack there scored a hit on the 1st roll

He tried to recover, however, that pretty much did him in.

If the majority of experts agreed that "mid-luck" dice made the game so much more enjoyable, GTO incorporated that algorithm & it was all the rage of making for a really great game compared to regular dice, well, I'd have to try it.

I may be biased, since I am more of an "adrenalin' juice junkie" than anything else.

[bmaster]

The six inf were attacking, right?


Numbers do make a big difference in the odds, so I don't know if opponent was truly idiotic for attacking, as the potential payoff was huge.

But separately, why should you have to win just because you played better? Its like poker, sometimes the player who played better loses. You gotta just enjoy crafting strategies. Any aggressive player could beat you anyway on a 10% Berlin strike too, why feel bad about it?

In response to bb, while people in the league may *itch about dice and such to blow off steam, probably not fair to assume that they aren't also learning or reflecting just as much as you . I don't know how the complaining affects me but I do know being judged for blowing off steam would be annoying.

[mmd1]

The six inf were attacking, right?

yes and no. funnily enough 6 inf were involved in all of the examples. 1 attack and 2 defending.

Numbers do make a big difference in the odds, so I don't know if opponent was truly idiotic for attacking, as the potential payoff was huge.

the attack was just into manchuria on R2. presumably they would have been happy with killing off one plane....

But separately, why should you have to win just because you played better? Its like poker, sometimes the player who played better loses. You gotta just enjoy crafting strategies. Any aggressive player could beat you anyway on a 10% Berlin strike too, why feel bad about it?

a fair question and getting to the crux of the issue maybe. i'll think on that. sometimes general custer wins then.

In response to bb, while people in the league may *itch about dice and such to blow off steam, probably not fair to assume that they aren't also learning or reflecting just as much as you . I don't know how the complaining affects me but I do know being judged for blowing off steam would be annoying.

i'm asking for gto to consider adding something i think will be beneficial for them and for at least some of the players.

[bb82]

6inf v 2 inf 3 fig

Yes that would be annoying. How annoying would depend on the situation. I can see situations when doing the above might be worth a round of combat to see. 2ish hits during a round with only 1ish in return might make me do another round. Unit count matters a lot.

I don't think I'd ever use LL, probably just switch games if that ever became the norm and was hard for me to find good games. ML though... I do see the appeal and wish it was here too as a nice mix between the two. My favorite partial luck might be 2/3L where the first roll is weighted twice compared to the second roll before they were averaged for the final result. I guess it just depends on the ease to find a good game. Regular dice would always be my preferred way to play though.

But separately, why should you have to win just because you played better?

Yeah, I never understood that part of it either. Sometimes your just playing against the dice or perhaps other circumstances that led to the present map situation. A good hard game can result from playing against an opponent, the dice, your own mistakes, etc, or some combination of all of the above.

In response to bb, while people in the league may *itch about dice and such to blow off steam, probably not fair to assume that they aren't also learning

I never said they weren't learning. But in general I do believe that if one blames losses entirely on the dice then I don't see how that person can be learning much except possibly more dislike for the dice.

[mmd1]

just to be clear, i'm talking about the loss of crucial game-changing battles here not games. and only because the results were such short odds.

had a think about bmasters question and i've decided that it's because i'm not a gambler - at all. i think that is why i would like to play middle luck.