
12

Same as low luck except instead of rolling the remainder, it always misses, but the remainder is added to the next round of combat (whether it's in this battle or the next one).
Ex.
4 infantry defending against 3 armor.
4*2=8
3*3=9
So defenders inflict 1 hit with 86=2 points carrying over. Attackers inflict 1 hit with 96=3 points carrying over. Leaving:
3 inf defending against 2 armor
3*2+2=8
2*3+3=9
So defenders inflict 1 hit with 86=2 points carrying over. Attackers inflict 1 hit with 96=3 points carrying over. Leaving:
2 inf defending against 1 armor
2*2+2=6 1*3+3=6
So defenders win with 1 inf left and nothing carried over.
Another ex.
1 inf defending against 4 inf
The first round no one hits but 2 points is carried over for the defenders and 4, for the attackers.
1*2+2=4
4*1+4=8
So in the 2nd round attackers win with no casualties and 2 points carried over for the next battle. The defending side has 4 points carried over for the next battle.


to make it simpler you could make remainders carry over only within the same battle
someone should code this. It's frustrating playing low luck; you might as well go all the way with no luck!


I like the idea of carry over the bonus through the same combat, but not to the next battle and I will try explain why:
ex: I'm playing with America and throw lots of units (3 tanks, 4 inf, 5 art, 3 fighters, 2 bombers) against a alone inf in Africa.
Next battle in Japan or Europe, at the same round, I will have a huge bonus, so my 2 inf probably will win against stronger units. This don't looks like no luck for me. Looks like transfer my bonus to the main battle.

Administrator

even if you keep remainder counting to only the current battle, and have it not carry over to the next battle, you still create very serious problems:
take for example the issue of 2 infantry attacking 1 infantry
In Dice, (the way the game is meant to be played), here is what happens:Attacker:
3% chance of getting 2 hits. (However, 2 hits are useless in this situation, as you only need 1 hit. this is very important to keep in mind)
27% chance of getting 1 hit
70% chance of getting no hits
Defender:
33% chance of getting 1 hit
67% chance of getting no hits
End results:
66% chance the attacker wins
5% chance no one wins
29% chance the defender wins
In "No Luck", here is what happens:first round, nothing happens,
second round, nothing happens,
third round, 1 infantry on each side die,
End result:
100% chance the attacker wins with 1 infantry left
The difference:
You are basically removing 34% of the equation from the game. You are turning an attack that NOONE in A&A games ever performs, into an attack that everyone would always perform.
to me this is a load of crap,
low luck already distorts the outcomes of battles in order to favor total hitpoints over high rolling units,
but this is just ridiculous, and completely changes how the game is played.


This post was updated on .
Veqryn wrote
to me this is a load of crap,
low luck already distorts the outcomes of battles in order to favor total hitpoints over high rolling units,
but this is just ridiculous, and completely changes how the game is played.
Personally I like this "option" I agree it changes the way the game is played and also it unbalances some maps... then again it could work for some maps...
Also the same is true for Low Luck vs. Dice... Low Luck vs. Dice also completely change the way the game is played...
In dice there is a chance with 6 inf attacking 1 inf that the attacker loses 6 inf vs no losses. where with lowluck there is 1/3 chance of one loss in the first round and a win and 2/3 chance of no losses in the first round and a win.
I would even consider taking this a bit further... using odds...
Normally in wargames there are odds of attack vs. defense... + sometimes a die roll. (typically this works with stacking limits games, but alas)  ... so a 1:2 attack gives X effect, and a 2:1 attack gives Y effect 3:1 attack give Z effect... but that is a bridge too far for now.


I see what you are trying to do.
A good example situation is if I attack a tank in territory A and another in territory B
under laws of probabily, I should take 1 casualty (50% of the time)
but theres also 25% chance of taking 2 casualties (i am sad)
and 25% of no casualties( defender is sad)
(this is assuming I kill the tank in first round)
Its basically low luck between battles. Which has good applications, because when unit are scattered it reduces low luck's effects. And its easy to see the possible different results of the same opening moves.
WW2v3 is a good example, because at the end of the first round the amount of axis planes left can drastically vary.
I cant code Java, but ill provide moral support :)


This post was updated on .
eurofabio wrote
I like the idea of carry over the bonus through the same combat, but not to the next battle and I will try explain why:
ex: I'm playing with America and throw lots of units (3 tanks, 4 inf, 5 art, 3 fighters, 2 bombers) against a alone inf in Africa.
Next battle in Japan or Europe, at the same round, I will have a huge bonus, so my 2 inf probably will win against stronger units. This don't looks like no luck for me. Looks like transfer my bonus to the main battle.
No, only the remainder (if any) will carry over, not any extra hits (so a max of 5 points carries over for 6 sided dice). So in your ex, the remainder is 2 for the attacker and just 2 will carry over; for the defender, the remainder is the same and so 2 will carry over also. (it's not 2 hits that carries over but 2 points; you need 6 points per hit)
While carrying over between battles makes it more complicated it does solve the problem of 2 tanks always winning with no casualties against one fighter (with carrying over between battles, while the result doesn't change, the defender will be compensated by having 4 carry over in the next battle)

Administrator

That is actually a great example of why this no luck system doesn't work,
2 tanks vs 1 fighter
2 tanks always win, with no losses, while the fighter always dies
also, allowing people to carry any remainder over between battles is basically cheating
lets say I have a rather important battle, that i want to do a good job of winning
i can attack an unimportant battle first, and make sure to get exactly 5 remainder, that way i can do the more important battle next with the 5 carryover
There is no decent NO Luck system
However, 2 years ago I created and played a table top game with a "Low Luck with Remainder" system, which I think is far superior to what you mentioned above:
here is the system i proposed about two years ago: " Low Luck with Remainder"
Just like low luck, but you carry over remainders (including negative remainders) during a battle (but not to the next battle)
so, for example:
attacker: 3 tanks
vs
defender: 3 infantry
round 1:
attacker gets 1 automatic hit, and rolls 1@3
if he gets a hit, then the remainder for the next round is exactly the remaining amount that he would have had to fill in order to get a true low luck hit: 3
if he does not get a hit, the remainder is the amount you rolled for: 3
defender gets 1 automatic hit, no remainder
round 2
if attacker had 2 hits:
2 tanks vs 1 infantry
attacker rolls @3 instead of getting an automatic hit, because they have a negative remainder from the previous round (3)
defender rolls @2
if attacker had 1 hit:
2 tanks vs 2 infantry
attacker gets 1 automatic hit, and rolls @3 to see if they get a second hit, because they have a positive remainder of 3
defender rolls @4
In the end however, I abandoned this system because of the same reasons I posted above.
In the event that the defender rolls at 2 and gets a hit, they will have 4 remainder for the next round, meaning that the next round they do not roll at all. In fact, it would mean no rolling for 2 rounds because of that hit.
So the end result is still massive gameplay changes which are unacceptable.
So, I created a new method which I called " Dice Luck Limiting":
essentially, instead of rolling a 6 sided die, you roll a 600 sided die
001100 = 1
101200 = 2
201300 = 3
301400 = 4
401500 = 5
501600 = 6
Now, every time you rolled a number, these above goalposts would change slightly, thereby lowering the chance of rolling that number again
I based this on "10" originally, but you could choose any number in reality depending on how much you wanted to shrink the standard deviation of dice rolls
So, lets say you rolled a "1"
This would change the goalposts to shrink the range of "1" by 10, and the other numbers would each increase by 2
result:
001090 = 1
091292 = 2
193394 = 3
295396 = 4
397498 = 5
499600 = 6
Now the next time you roll a die, you have a slightly increased chance of getting any number other than a "1".
I played A&A revised twice using this system, using programmable calculators for rolling the dice, one calculator for each nation that way the "luck" was tracked for each nation.
It worked really well and kept the game very even. If someone got really good luck in one battle, they would end up getting bad luck later on in another battle.
This meant that all of the original characteristics of a "DICE" game were still in this game. You had to manage the risk of losing. You still had to bring those extra troops to make sure you secured that territory. You still had to keep units in reserve to react to situations where you didn't do well, or you did surprising well or the opponent didn't do well. The only difference was that there were not so many times where someone got crazy good/bad dice, and there were few times where you got great/bad dice multiple times in a row. (One other interesting thing is that this system of limiting luck can be combined with low luck as well)
However, there was still a major problem with this method:
If you did really well in 1 battle, you had to make sure your next battle was not very important.
And if you did aweful in 1 battle, you definitely made sure you did your important battle next.
Because in a way, you were carrying over luck between battles.
Obviously you could fix this by making the goalposts reset after each battle. However, this method does not act fast enough to really make a difference during a single battle.
In the end, my friends and I abandoned both methods of lowering luck and stuck to this simple system:
Low Luck for AntiAircraft fire, and Technology (though we normally played without tech)
Dice for all other battles


Veqryn wrote
i can attack an unimportant battle first, and make sure to get exactly 5 remainder, that way i can do the more important battle next with the 5 carryover
You will still have to sacrifice for that. But I see your point.
Veqryn wrote
However, 2 years ago I created and played a table top game with a "Low Luck with Remainder" system, which I think is far superior to what you mentioned above:
Sounds better than low luck.
Veqryn wrote
So, I created a new method which I called "Dice Luck Limiting":
I would simplify it (and IMO) improve it like this:
For every set of 6 rolls by a player, each number occurs once.
So first roll by Tim is a normal roll. Tim rolls a 2.
2nd roll, Tim can roll a 1,3,4,5,6. Tim rolls a 6
3rd roll, Tim can roll a 1,3,4,5. Tim rolls a 1.
4th roll, Tim can roll a 3,4,5. Tim rolls a 4.
5th roll, Tim can roll a 3,5. Tim rolls a 5.
6th roll, Tim rolls a 3.
7th roll is normal, etc.
(these rolls may of course happen many at a time)
This would keep it even more even and mitigate the gaming of the system you mentioned.
You could even combine this with low luck.
I like no luck b/c it makes the winner win purely on skill (especially if the player wins as both teams!) and makes for IMO a more elegant game. They used a system very similar to the no luck I proposed above for an email tournament apparently, years ago.

Administrator

This post was updated on .
you didn't address the example of someone who is attacking with a value of 6 attack points, vs someone defending with 5 defense points
the attacker will win without even a single casualty
2 tanks vs 1 fighter
also, the system you just proposed can be gamed even more than the other system.... not sure if you thought about it much or not but it is definitely not an improvement.
example:
I have 3 battles this turn: 1 is soso, 1 is very important a good chance of losing, and 1 is not important at all and will definitely be won no matter what
I do the soso battle first:
I write down all the dice i get
I find that I received a 3,4,5,6 recently... so i know I am going to get a 1 and 2 next
So I do the very important battle next, winning because i knew i would get a 1 and 2 right off the draw
(if i had instead received low numbers, i would instead do the not so important battle next...)


2 tank divisions should actually overrun an airbase with a fighter wing... but that I guess isn't the point of your example..
I agree that noluck will have gameplay and balancing issues, and won't work for all maps / setups  but I don't see that as an automatic disqualifier.

If you leave your fighter (or defense4 ground unit) alone on the frontline within striking range of 2 tank divisions while playing a noluck game... you deserve to lose it.  and in this scenario you could even see a romaniagermany combo coming (Ro clearing the way for the Ge tankdivisions to be able to hit it) because there isn't any luckyRumanian roll that punches the gap.
Personally I Like lowluck better then dice... but I don't really like lowluck because at the end of the day it is usually still a diceroll that determines the game outcome.
Most NWO games I played are determined by the outcome of the Mediteranean Seabattle (usually there is an armsrace between the ITA fleet and UK fleet between Cairo/Taranto ... which could result in a 10+ round sea battle when those 2 fleets finally meet....
I have seen, even with lowluck outcomes of the same battle between: UK wins with 34 ships left... to ITA wins with 34 ships left.
I know it is realistic to not know the exact outcome and there should be some risk... however... in this case dicerolls determine the winner of the game which I think should never happen.
Cheers!

So a final note... I think noluck WOULD work, and it WILL change the gameplay and possibly needs slightly different setups... but I would like to, at least, keep it as an option.


There will be ways to abuse any dice rolling system that isnt normal dice (unless people did not know how the dice system worked)
low luck is no exception.
but just because there are exploits to no luck doesnt mean it shouldnt exhist. If you dont like the idea you dont have to use it. The low luck with remainders sounded pretty solid, the only problem is with very small numbers you can end up with unusual situations.
*what if we use standard LL or normal dice in a battle of X units or smaller? not sure if it can be coded, but this is a very useful option. You could even have a half LL half dice game, where only large battles are solved by LL, the everyday fights done by dice.
Another question, would it be possible to have a game option that caused dice system to change at a certain round
ex. low luck for round 1, dice for the rest of the game.
I prefer dice for ww2v3, but sometimes the game is a mess by the end of the first round.
I cant code Java, but ill provide moral support :)


I have played against a player that on the eastern front always attacked with 6 inf against 1 inf with LL (guaranteed win with usually 2/3 times 0 losses and 1/3 times 1 loss).... because very often when he attacked with 4 or 5 inf against 1 inf... he would loose everything :)
(true story!)

LL changes tactics... how often have you seen attacks with 2 inf + 1 bomber (or 2 earlies) vs 1 inf (or 1 tank) on the russian front in NWO?
1 inf to loose + 1 inf to take the territory and the 4 points airforce to put the attack exactly on 6.


<quote author="Edwin van der Wal"> LL changes tactics... how often have you seen attacks with 2 inf + 1 bomber (or 2 earlies) vs 1 inf (or 1 tank) on the russian front in NWO?
answer  every turn. But..........the attack is used under dice as well. Wouldnt you exucute that attack under dice? The player would add extra planes if he could, but if not most players would still do it.
While LL creates a very favourable attack that is repeated often, it is not neccesarily a different tactic than before. Trading territory with minimal infantry and a plane comes straight off the revised board, LL or not.
The flaw of Low Luck is predicability. A no NO LUCK system would emphasize this, which can be bad.
While No Luck has various flaws and exploits, the thing is BOTH SIDES have them. It will come down to players and their ability to use the tools available to them to win. Which means its an even game, and luck has essentially been eliminated, the goal is achieved.
I cant code Java, but ill provide moral support :)


The only "no" luck system (=very low luck system) which can work is this:
You take your luck/bad luck from one battleround to the next  but not from a battle to another.
1) You use normal LL rules the first battleround, dh. x hit + y rest to dice.
2a) If you dont hit round 1, you can take the "bad luck" with you in the next round, d.i. + y for the
2. second round.
2b) If you hit round 1, you take your "luck" with you to the next round, d.i. y6 for the second round
F.x inf+art v inf (very importent battle in aa50): The attacker will win 100% with inf+art or inf (with LL 92%),
If Attacker hit round one, defender will dice normally and the battle ends
If Attacker dont hit 1 round, he will get y=+4 for the next round (and he will hit the second round)
If Defender hit round one, he will get y=4 and dont hit second round
If defender dont hit round one, he will get y=+2, and hit on 4 in the second round
The battle 2inf+art v 2 inf would also be won for the attacker (with LL it is "only" 88%), and in both case the average IPCvalue won/lost is not change a lot from normal LL.
yama
(2 tank v ftr wouldnt change anything)
(2 inf v inf would be very close to 100%)


Here is a somewhat different no luck variant. I used to play this frequently back in to 1990's, it made for a good, fast game.


The problem is that without luck, there is no skill at all in this game. Just like life. Otherwise why would you build tanks, infantry and fighters at all, if you want a sure thing only build NUKES.
I hate low luck, especially AA. If 13 planes attack me where I have an AA gun and LL is on, I hit 2 and roll a 1/6. effectively leaving 11 planes to continue the attack. in Dice, I have a 1 in 6 chance per plane to hit. A completely random sequence in numbers 1through 6 can be 1,1,1,1,1,1.
This is a huge tactic difference between the two variants. In Dice you don't mass planes to attack, in LL you do.
When I play the board game, I attribute the lone infantry in Karelia defending incredibly well against the German Armor divisions as Russian Winter freezing the tanks while my Infantry have ski's on their feet. I often do this in a terrible Russian accent and much amusement is had by all. Shit happens, Shit is supposed to happen. That's why it's a game. This is why people play chess and not tic tac toe.
The only LL element I play with is in Tech Rolls. I see it more as building a laboratory, testing it out, and either getting a success or a failure, but you learn from that failure and success is a little bit closer.
If its dice, I may fight to the death with a 33% chance to win, at the start. If its dice I will dare you to attack my infantry stack. If it is dice I push the odds and the odds will push back. Do I always win, No, will it be a good game, Yes!


I have played no luck versions FTF and they are interesting (but different). It is strength of A&A (and TripleA) that it can support different styles of play.


Strategerize wrote
will it be a good game, Yes!
Not necessarily. While I do agree that it does take skill to adapt to the dice rolls, I have played multiple games where the fun was ruined because of dice behaving abnormally, both causing me to win and lose. Honestly, I dont want to win because I happened to shoot down 11 of 13 attacking planes or my opponent only scored 2 hits with 17 tanks. I want to outmaneuver or outplay my opponent, or die hard trying.
The glorious thing about LL or the possible NL is that is an option. I favor LL on maps like NWO, but on revised or ww2v3 I like dice. The NL option would be an option, so if you hate it just ignore it.
@RogerCooper  your version seems rather complicated. I would like to try out LL but with remainders outstanding. Is there anyway I could get whatever I need from a dev to try it out?
PS  @stratagize could you elaborate on your chess comment? Im not sure what you mean by it
Just my 2 cents...


@RogerCooper  your version seems rather complicated. I would like to try out LL but with remainders outstanding. Is there anyway I could get whatever I need from a dev to try it out?
If you want to replicate the results of A&A, you need to use remainders and some sort of charging IPC's for damage. It was really intended for FTF.
For a computer, it is possible to create a combat module that tracked losses fractionally. For example 2 infantry vs 1 infantry could be handled as:
1. Each side inflicts .33 hits, leaving 1.67 vs .67
2. Attacker inflicts .28, defender inflicts .22, leaving 1.45 vs .39
3. Attacker inflicts .24, defender inflicts .13, leaving 1.32 vs .15
4. Attacker inflicts .22, defender inflicts .04, leaving 1.28 vs 0
Then some sort of rounding of losses would be applied.

12
