Offer "biased" and "low luck" dice options in ranked games (or simply correct the RNG)!!!

[Timepilot7]

The die roll results I have experienced in over 750 hours of playing this game are simply wacky and ridiculous (I can never get that time or my $20 back). I work and understand advanced statistics very well (however, die rolling is very basic statistics) and I have a masters degree and the regular rare outcomes I see make the majority of games I played (win or lose) basically a joke (sorry folks, you ARE wasting your time playing this game, you might as well play Monopoly). My meager winning percentage was 60% for Axis and 50% for Allies (silver rankings in both) before I forfeited all my current games out of disgust and the realization that strategy is of secondary importance in this digital version. The "biased" dice and the "low luck" options (which supposedly limits the crazy possible outcomes which are seen so often) is not allowed for ranked games, so that helps, NOT!!! The creators need to LOOK AT THE STREAKS AND THE NUMBER OF RARE OUTCOMES NOT THE AVG OF THE ROLLS to asses the fairness of the RNG!!! There are simply WAY TOO many exceptions which statistically are next to impossible to get so frequently (possible, yes, but HIGHLY unlikely to occur so often). I have played the A&A board game since it came out in the 80's (40 freaking years) and have never seen so many "lottery" outcomes so frequently in this game that are at times literally laughable but maddening at the same time. This is no gamer's illusion where you only remember the incredibly bad (or incredibly good) outcomes. Maybe the designers can create an A&A Monopoly themed game version that would be a lot more fun/strategic to play? I want royalties for the idea (if it doesn't already exist). We all have a sense of fairness, and this game simply feels wrong and unfair the majority of the time which is so sad because it has so much potential.

[Scrogdog]

If the RNG affects you poorly, then it also does so to your opponent. How is it unfair?

I'm an old school wargamer from the 70s (yep... old) and I honestly haven't experienced anything that I think is unusual for what is primarily a dice game with not many ways to mitigate a bad run. I've played different versions of the boardgame and imo, such games are prone to wild swings and streaks both good and bad.

Dice games are dice games. *shrug*

[Redwood]

Nothing is wrong with the RNG--it works as it was designed: perfectly. You are having a run of bad luck--happens to the best of us.

[dmr]

Ok, if the dice aren’t random, why don’t you apply all of your statistical expertise and figure out the actual probability distribution? That would be a pretty huge advantage in planning your battles and tricking players that play on the assumption of random dice into making bad attacks.

Me personally, I plan based on random dice and I probably lose a 95% chance attack 1 out of 20 times (at least a few times per game) and I’m okay with that.

[montrealsteak]

There has been much discussion on the dice and some do feel that the standard dice have unusually long streaks that can increase your risks when engaging in low unit count battles. But most also agree that if you take a large sample, say 1000 units or more, then the results are statistically correct.

The effect of this is that the game appears to favor conservative play. Some top players will not attack unless they have >95%, if not 99% chance of victory. While I'm not good enough to consistently position my units to achieve that kind of overwhelming odds, I accept the possibility that all 4 of my fighters might whiff or that 5 out of 6 bombers might get shot down on SBR, or that it's a coin flip whether my 2 infantry plus fighter will defeat 1 infantry. This means that I should have a backup plan and be prepared to retreat.

But as the battles become larger with more consequence, the chance of a statistically accurate result increases. A lot of top players buy infantry to increase their hit points and even out the odds.

In the end, you can lose a game because of bad dice. But if you play a lot of games and use sound strategy and tactics, you should win your share of games. Check out the platinum top ten list and you'll notice a lot of the same names appear every season. This means that it isn't about luck, at lease that's what I think it means.

[shmity72]

i bomb raided once. got shot down. my opponent bomb raided 20x not one hit. these aren't 'crazy' odds just bad beats and yes, humans tend to remember the bad beats first. it's in our dna

[Tomaster]

I'm not a fan of low luck and guaranteed hits. My understanding is all attacks have guaranteed out comes based on the number of units and attack power. To me that means it's just a matter of math to play the game. Germany for example can buy the minimum units required to defeat ussr knowing ussrs purchase power.

[Timepilot7]

I guess the guy at WarGamer.com reviewing A&A earlier this year just had bad luck as well? How could he have nailed it, like immediately, on the bombers? The conspiracy grows...

https://www.wargamer.com/axis-and-allies/1942-online-early-access

[dmr]

Low luck just adds up all the attack stats and gives you a hit for every 6 attack power and then you roll one die for any remainder. It makes infantry a bit less important because you don’t need to worry about soaking up lucky hits.

[Timepilot7]

I really don't want to rely on low luck or biased dice to be 100% honest, I hate the whole idea. I would much prefer some data analysis proving the RNG is fair and square. Which I could do myself, just send me the data! Not interested in averages (although important to look at also), I'm interested in the frequency of "streaks" (high or low) and "exceptions" which, of course can happen, but NOT in the frequency that it seems to. Need to match observations with expected outcomes. I get the whole chance thing and love it, I hit a royal flush once in video poker (big payout) and you know what, despite playing a lot since then, it has never happened again. In A&A it seems to happen for or against me in 60% of the games I've played at one time or another. Playing the board game for over a decade I've been burned by the dice, you bet, BIG TIME! But it pales in comparisons to the incredible streaks and exceptional rolls I've seen so often in the digital version which should be exceedingly rare.

[montrealsteak]

Originally posted by Timepilot7:

I guess the guy at WarGamer.com reviewing A&A earlier this year just had bad luck as well? How could he have nailed it, like immediately, on the bombers? The conspiracy grows...

https://www.wargamer.com/axis-and-allies/1942-online-early-access

US bombers is a viable strat. Cow has proven it with his ranking.

[Scrogdog]

Originally posted by Timepilot7:

I guess the guy at WarGamer.com reviewing A&A earlier this year just had bad luck as well? https://www.wargamer.com/axis-and-allies/1942-online-early-access

Here's what that reviewer actually said about the dice.

Now, to discuss the dice. Anyone taking a look at the Axis & Allies Online steam discussions will see endless comments railing against what a significant portion of the community feels are wonky dice. I’ll admit, having first played the game without really looking online, I had a nagging suspicion that something was up. It was entirely too common to have industrial bombing missions end in abject failure.

Strategic bombers should only be shot down 1/6 of the time, but it happens with a regularity that makes me feel there might be something wrong with the random number generation. The debates are endless, with the developers insisting nothing is wrong and angry gamers yelling into the void. Be warned, is all.

A nagging suspicion that something is up, eh? My heavens, sounds just like any other conspiracy theory to me. *chuckle*

No, actually, bombers odds of being shot down are only 1 in 6 if a single bomber attacks. Just wondering how a statistics guy missed that. :) Surely such a comment hardly speaks to the author's credibility in any case, right?

[Ris Dnalor]

Originally posted by Timepilot7:

The die roll results I have experienced in over 750 hours of playing this game are simply wacky and ridiculous (I can never get that time or my $20 back). I work and understand advanced statistics very well (however, die rolling is very basic statistics) and I have a masters degree and the regular rare outcomes I see make the majority of games I played (win or lose) basically a joke (sorry folks, you ARE wasting your time playing this game, you might as well play Monopoly). My meager winning percentage was 60% for Axis and 50% for Allies (silver rankings in both) before I forfeited all my current games out of disgust and the realization that strategy is of secondary importance in this digital version. The "biased" dice and the "low luck" options (which supposedly limits the crazy possible outcomes which are seen so often) is not allowed for ranked games, so that helps, NOT!!! The creators need to LOOK AT THE STREAKS AND THE NUMBER OF RARE OUTCOMES NOT THE AVG OF THE ROLLS to asses the fairness of the RNG!!! There are simply WAY TOO many exceptions which statistically are next to impossible to get so frequently (possible, yes, but HIGHLY unlikely to occur so often). I have played the A&A board game since it came out in the 80's (40 freaking years) and have never seen so many "lottery" outcomes so frequently in this game that are at times literally laughable but maddening at the same time. This is no gamer's illusion where you only remember the incredibly bad (or incredibly good) outcomes. Maybe the designers can create an A&A Monopoly themed game version that would be a lot more fun/strategic to play? I want royalties for the idea (if it doesn't already exist). We all have a sense of fairness, and this game simply feels wrong and unfair the majority of the time which is so sad because it has so much potential.

Just more evidence that statistics have nothing to do with reality.

I will say that I do feel pretty comfortable attacking an enemy navy with an air force that "statistically" only has a 50% of chance of destroying the fleet with 1 plane left --- because usually when I do it, I have most of my planes left. Something feels weird about the battles with strictly planes attacking someone's navy. I mean it works against me too, so I suppose it's fair. But, it's probably just in my head, and the next 1000 games will fall into line and be boringly predictable :P

But in seriousness, I do want to pull my hair out on occasion because of the dice here, but I remember playing the board game, and having the same feeling at times, so I am not convinced there's anything wrong with the digital dice.

That being said I would absolutely play games with low luck dice or no luck dice, ranked or unranked. It would be a horribly boring game. People would quickly find the optimal moves and countermoves, and games would be extremely repetitive. Like to the point that you might as well go watch someone else's game on Youtube, because it'll be the same, and you wouldn't have to press any buttons...

The challenge of A&A is getting those ♥♥♥♥♥♥ dice, and being able to win any way. Or at least it is for me. Doesn't always work, but if it always worked, why play at all?

[Timepilot7]

Agree, we all want some randomness to the game otherwise it would be dreadfully boring. I'm just looking for better options when playing ranked games because the standard die rolls "seem" to be out of wack too often and it should NOT take 1,000 rolls to come close to the expected averages. I cringe when people say that they avoid using bombers because of that perception, question the reliability of battleship bombardments, or have to mass up pieces to avoid the all too frequent surprises.

My first "Royal Flush" moment years ago was being attacked by two subs against my 8 defending subs and losing all 8 and attacker losing none. It can happen, sure, absolutely and in many games I'll go for broke because "you're saying there's a chance". It should be a once in a lifetime thing though, maybe twice, but I have literally hundreds of similar Royal Flush moments in 750 hours of playing this game which ultimately cheapens it, whether I win or lose.

[Ris Dnalor]

Originally posted by Timepilot7:

Agree, we all want some randomness to the game otherwise it would be dreadfully boring. I'm just looking for better options when playing ranked games because the standard die rolls "seem" to be out of wack too often and it should NOT take 1,000 rolls to come close to the expected averages. I cringe when people say that they avoid using bombers because of that perception, question the reliability of battleship bombardments, or have to mass up pieces to avoid the all too frequent surprises.

My first "Royal Flush" moment years ago was being attacked by two subs against my 8 defending subs and losing all 8 and attacker losing none. It can happen, sure, absolutely and in many games I'll go for broke because "you're saying there's a chance". It should be a once in a lifetime thing though, maybe twice, but I have literally hundreds of similar Royal Flush moments in 750 hours of playing this game which ultimately cheapens it, whether I win or lose.

Good points.

I've never ween a wonky issue with battleship bombardments either way, and interestingly my experience with bombers ( giving or receiving ) is that they feel like they hit more than they should, and get shot down less than they should. As far as industrial bombing, over the long term each bomber is more likely to be shot down before it does 12 IPCs of damage, so most of the time I use them for regular combat instead. But now that they're 12 IPCs instead of 15 they, somewhat deceptively I think, just feel really cheap, which is dangerous for my ranking lol.

I'm only about 50 games in on this game, but played hundreds, if not thousands of games on the old A&A: Iron Blitz, and a fair share of board games before that, though those were difficult to organize. I definitely don't feel any noticeable difference between these dice and on the old PC game, and I think they're pretty close to the actual dice of the board game as well.

I think the problem most people make is that they don't play with a good dice roller that gives you percentiles for how many units will survive a given battle so what they think are realistic expectations really aren't. Either that or they see a result that is 90% likely, and think it's outrageous when it fails to occur 3 times in a row. That's really not that far outside the norm imo.

Taking risky moves, for me at least, is something I try to have the self-discipline to reserve for those moments when you have no other option of winning. But then I'm still in Silver ranking so I probably need to work on that, lol.

But finally, given the ranking system as it is, Even if the dice aren't perfect, they aren't perfect for anyone. I do feel like actually being able to see our "elo" scores ( and the scores of our opponents, even if we could only see it during the time we were in a game with them ) would help ease the souls of the more competitive among us.

[dmr]

Originally posted by Timepilot7:

Agree, we all want some randomness to the game otherwise it would be dreadfully boring. I'm just looking for better options when playing ranked games because the standard die rolls "seem" to be out of wack too often and it should NOT take 1,000 rolls to come close to the expected averages. I cringe when people say that they avoid using bombers because of that perception, question the reliability of battleship bombardments, or have to mass up pieces to avoid the all too frequent surprises.

My first "Royal Flush" moment years ago was being attacked by two subs against my 8 defending subs and losing all 8 and attacker losing none. It can happen, sure, absolutely and in many games I'll go for broke because "you're saying there's a chance". It should be a once in a lifetime thing though, maybe twice, but I have literally hundreds of similar Royal Flush moments in 750 hours of playing this game which ultimately cheapens it, whether I win or lose.

Losing 8 subs against 2 attackers is a 0.05% outcome. That’s very unlikely but still not once in a lifetime. If we ballpark 100 battles per game. You would expect an outcome like that about once every 14 games.