Why CAN'T the DICE be RANDOM?

[bob88lablah]

Please respond to my question. This is a GREAT game, with the WORST bias on DICE EVER INVENTED in my opinion. Whats yourz?

[simon_hibbs]

Ive played hundreds of games over 3 years. The dice are fine. Axis & Allies is a very swingy game, it's been notorious for this since the 1980s. For anyone who thinks 'real dice wouldn't behave like this' check out the world championship final at GenCon 2024 on Youtube. All physical casino quality dice.

The problem is that thousands of game are played online every day, that means thousand to one against odds come up almost every day. Some of the people this happens to get upset and come to forums to let off steam about it.

[[cK] Hesh]

It would be interesting if to see a daily/weekly/monthly result tracked and posted. Along with which side won as percent. I think it would be educational and eye opening. The only thing anyone has control over is the units you buy and how you use them. The results are out of everyone hands and you play accordingly to the next turn.

[Father of WAR]

i like the dice the way they are. it gives hope when you are in a hopeless game, you can try a unlikely attack to try to change the odds

[ofancow]

A truly random dice system is expensive.

Play low luck if you want to test skill vs skill instead of luck vs luck. In the history of this game I have never lost a low-luck 3.0 game as the alliance. Amazing what happens when your 12/9 Russian open doesn't have a 90%+ fail rate.

[rocky1242]

I have to agree with Father of War here. If the better player won every time the game would get old fast. I don't feel bad when I lose to bad dice. When I get good dice, don't make any mistakes, and still lose anyhow and have no idea what I should have done different, that's hard to handle.

[4touchdowns1game]

“Amazing what happens when your 12/9 Russian open doesn't have a 90%+ fail rate.“

Difficult to take the dice complainers seriously with this kind of exaggeration going on.

[ofancow]

Originally posted by rocky1242:

If the better player won every time the game would get old fast.

That's an unusual take and sounds like "mental math" to achieve:
I won = My Skill
I lost = Bad Dice.

People have been playing chess and weiqi for thousands of years and those games haven't "gotten old."

[rocky1242]

I've played a lot of chess and it doesn't get old as long as you play against people the same approximate skill level as you. Try playing against a chess engine, you'll get tired of that fast. I like how playing a lower ranked player isn't a guaranteed win, and a higher ranked player isn't a guaranteed loss. Some people's egos can't handle losing to a lower ranked player because of luck, mine can.

[ofancow]

Originally posted by rocky1242:

Some people's egos can't handle losing to a lower ranked player because of luck, mine can.

That's exactly what I am saying - you are jumping through hoops to say that the only reason you lose to lower ranked players is luck.

Your equation seems to invariably involve
I Won = My Skill
I Lost = Bad Dice

Maybe your wins are because of your good luck, and you lose when there are no unusual dice outcomes.

A series of low-luck tournaments would really be the only way to sort it out.

[rocky1242]

I've lost to lower ranked players because of mistakes, one mistake can undo hours of good play. Generally I'm not going to lose to a lower ranked player because he used better strategy, if his strategy was better than mine he wouldn't be a lower rank. I used to hate low luck, but I've played some recently to experience something different. Low luck is a different strategy and a good player who plays it all the time would beat me.

[Timepilot7]

The die are "unrealistic", hundreds of crazy outcomes, maybe someday they will enhance it and make the game actually fun.

[ofancow]

Originally posted by rocky1242:

Low luck is a different strategy

I agree with you there. LL allows for several viable alternatives to the current meta(s).

With that said, however, it is also much less forgiving to poor decisions: bad overall strategy, bad purchase choices, bad unit management - there is (almost) no chance luck will salvage the player. In that regard it's probably a better AAO training tool than learning through standard dice play.

[Davy_Hall]

I really enjoy low luck, try to play a lot of my custom games there. Feels more like a simulation than a true war game though to me in some ways. Don't have to hold your breath on every battle, much of the time you know exactly the outcome including all losses before you start. Standard dice is way more of an adrenaline rush but sometimes almost too stressful, lol so low luck is a great change of pace.

[Vanessa777]

I think devs assign luck

[Davy_Hall]

Originally posted by Vanessa777:

I think devs assign luck

They assign it pretty randomly to me then. Some battles are good, some are bad. Not sure how they would even program that. What happens when 2 people who are supposed to get good luck play each other?