Low Luck Dice

[thepass]

Will Low Luck Dice be an option? It stops most of the crazy roll results. When Axis and Allies was on Game Table Online they had it as an option which made for more realistic overall results. It would be really nice to have a Low Luck Dice option on this game. Thanks.

[mantlefan]

Just had 44 inf 11 Art and 18 tanks get 11 total hits in a critical battle. Once again my opponent gets rewarded for making a big mistake. This kind of stuff makes the game less fun, and people like me who like this game because of strategy and not because of random chance completely dominating games are turned off. Why not make LL an OPTION and anyone who doesn't want to play it doesn't have to, and anyone who wants to can? When you queue, you queue either LL or standard.

By the way, LL outcomes are not decided before the battle starts most of the time. There's plenty of decision to be made. Do you want to send in 2 inf and 1 ftr and risk missing the 5? Or do you want to commit an extra infantry but then leave one more unit ready to get killed on the counterattack? Every 1 that's hit or 5 that's missed can be a huge swing. It still leaves tons of room for risk and luck, and every individual decision matters more.

[thepass]

Request low luck dice as an option and crazy rolls will end if the devs make it an option.

[Bakker]

Dice are too unpredictable and Low Luck are to predictable. How about do both and average the two, best of both worlds. Sorry if someone suggested before I have not read all the posts.

[nicewolf64]

i play other games that have a low luck option and i never think twice about playing that way. BUT, with this game, i would in a heartbeat. but as i understand the concept of low luck here, i would like to see a slightly better chance to more units for the winner maybe up to 3 or 5. give it some randomness. but i dont want to totally give up a chance of a Midway, if its 60-40 battle.

[WebbsNYC]

There is a lot of debate about dice, low luck, predictability, realism, etc.

My take is this. Dice are actually a poor way to represent the outcomes of military battles like this as it creates WAY too much variability as compared to real life. A well trained, well equipped military unit is going to perform consistently. If they are excellent in one battle, they will, by and large, be excellent in another battle. If they are poorly trained and poorly equipped, they will show a lot more variability in outcomes and their commanders will realize that this is not a crack elite unit, but rather guys that just got done with training and aren't ready for the real deal yet.

Now, in real life, plans are made around these understandings. Generals plan battles and wars around the capabilities of their troops. Those capabilities remain more or less consistent from one battle to the next.

In A&A (and any game that relies on dice) those rolls result in significant more variability. Such that one infantry unit that just kicked the crap out of two tanks and a fighter, will get crushed in the next battle defending against a single enemy infantry attacker. There is no consistency. One battle a commander may say "This regiment is awesome and I'm confident they can take out any similar unit." And it works that way most of the time. Rarely are those guys kicking ass one day, and then a bunch of incompetent idiots the next.

So, it seems to me that low luck solves for this. Infantry has a fixed capability, tanks have a fixed capability...they all perform the same way every time. Now, is it realistic that every single unit churned out is identical? No, of course not. But, its a lot more realistic than assuming that one day your crack assault veterans can take out 5x their number, and then the next they can't put their rifles back together for the upcoming battle. The dice make it impossible to be a true general in the sense that you don't know your troops...you're just guessing and hoping and have no real ability to plan...just guess and pray.

Now, the flip side of this is that in A&A all troops are visible, so there is no element of surprise, which is absolutely vital in warfare. The only surprises are when you mess up and didn't notice that plane that can hit your undefended transport. Or the extra tank a couple zones away that is coming to hit you, when you thought no one could. In reality, enemy troops are not where you expect. You don't know the EXACT size force to take against the enemy...because you don't know how many they are.

So, it cuts both ways. But the idea that these random rolls and significant fluctuations in outcomes are realistic is silly. Consistency is much more realistic. Low luck is much more realistic because you know what your troops can do. Less luck means that planning becomes more relevant. More luck means that reacting becomes more important. Like others, I prefer to win as a result of my plans. I don't feel as good about having some random dice roll that makes little sense in the context of "realism" and then having to change everything I was doing.

In real life, there were no "bad dice" that could have possibly resulted in America completely abandoning the pacific theater. In real life, there we no "bad dice" that could have possible resulted in the UK just abandoning any efforts at a naval presence due to the overwhelming advantage of the Germans after bad dice (for the UK) on German turn 1. And yet, those outcomes happen all the time in A&A.

So, in closing after this lengthy diatribe, I guess my view is low-luck should be an option, and in my opinion allows for a wargame with a closer alignment with reality. If people want to play with all of the swings that may the game more varied and wild and unpredictable, so be it. But those outcomes are not fun or enjoyable or realistic to me, so I prefer low luck (I think...having never played with it).

[thepass]

I agree. I have played both low luck and regular dice because game table online had a low luck option. I like low luck better because it's more like chess than roulette and I don't trust computer dice because there doesn't seem to be a true random number generator from what I have checked out. Even if they offered the low luck option, I would still play both. I don't know why the devs are against it because I doubt it is against the licenses. If they put it in they would greatly reduce complaints about the dice and I think they would sell more games. I know some don't like it, but you wouldn't forces to play it.

[1baddude]

I am here because a dude "strafed" me with 5 inf and destroyed 3 tanks and 1 inf then retreated. This is just not normal. Period.

And this is just one many bad experiences, including one in which I quited the game after my first (German) turn because all my attacks failed with 0 enemy loses.

Not to mention those countless attacks where I score lots of 2s with my inf, lots of 3s with my arty+inf, lots of 4s with my tanks and only 5-6 with my bombers. While the enemy scores lots of 1s and 2s with his defending infs. I am sure all of you have seen this by now..

So yeah, I vote for a low luck dice option, thank you very much!

As for the low luck mechanics, I am sure this can be improved upon in order to make it feel more RNG than in the examples I have read so far.

Cheers!

[Cesche86s]

It shouldn't be pro dice versus contra dice group. Both groups just have their favorite styl of playing which is ok. If both options would just be made available, this discussion could come to an end with EVERYBODY happy. In addition, my unlucky (dice related) brother would play again with me. Making me happy.