Unified Low Luck


  • Admin

    By @CrazyIvan

    Ok, so LL is great and all, as far as it goes, but there are still an incredibly large number of rolls in the game, that can see probability tossed out the window, and the chaos of randomness rule. My idea, while not able to take this entirely out of the game, can make things far better, by simple enforcing a simple change.

    In every battle, one and only one die is rolled, after LL is factored in, and this roll result will be applied to any remainder that either side may have, on a given round of any battle.

    Mutually Assured Destruction, if enabled, uses this single die roll, and since both sides are using this same number, the weaker side cannot outscore the stronger side with “Lucky shot, Sir” situations.

    Attack that lone transport with your fighter/bomber? If they hit you, you hit them! No more annoying little transport killing aircraft and living to tell about it.

    Play out 12 battles where the defender had just one infantry, and have them hit you 12 out of 12 times? My idea doesn’t prevent that from happening, but it does make sure, that in any and every battle where your forces had an advantage but suffered a lucky hit, it also makes sure that you hit them back!**

    Any thoughts?


  • Admin

    @CrazyIvan Its an interesting idea that has been brought up by other users in the past. It would minimize luck even further and have it be more 'shared'. There is also some interested in luck options that are in between LL and regular dice: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/212/moderate-luck-option

    An option like this would have to consider some additional questions around AA rolls, sub rolls, etc and whether those rolls would be used by both players as well.



  • Let's see if this is working now?


  • Moderators

    This would be hugely distortive of game mechanics, like Low Luck alread is, but this would impact especially hard on the small battles, where Low Luck is not as far away from regular dice as in the big stacks (likely a main aim, as you reference the single bomber against single transport case).

    A simple example is that, with these rules, you would easily choose to send 2 infantries to attack 1 infantry, as this would be 100% success. Hence, sending 2 infantries instead of 1 infantry and 1 artillery becomes much better a choice, heavily distorting units balance.

    Just making you notice that you are not just reducing the randomness of the game, once you get to the combat resolution phase, but changing the game to some other game, that will play out differently, modifying your strategy in purchase and movement, as well.

    On top of this, assuming such rolls will remain separate, this would increase the relative impact of increased randomness when having separate attacks/defences in the battle, like AA, submarines, naval bombardment, or when air cannot hit submarines but other units can.

    Finally, you would not cover all cases anyways, as, for example, sending 2 fighters to fight 1 battleship will remain about as risky, with all the possible outcomes, ranging from the battleship sunk with all fighters surviving to both fighters destroyed and the battleship surviving.



  • One of the problems with the spam filter blocking my post, is that I included this was for Classic/2nd edition in the OP, but that didn't make it here, unfortunately, and you seem to be including '2' hit BB's as well. I don't see this 'distorting' the game, but rather enforcing more probable result over improbable results, but as mentioned in my OP (that the spam filter ate over and over again), as an optional rule, that no one would be forced to use if they didn't want to, I cannot see the harm in it being implemented for those that would like to be able to use this.



  • Note sure if this next thing should be here or in it's own thread, so if it needs discussed separately, let me know and I can do that.

    For the first turn in the Classic/2nd edition A&A game, when folks are launching an attack against the "setup positions of another nation" could there be special conditions selectable at game creation. Many folks like the RR optional rule, but to me that really isn't fair, but how about being able to use LL/MAD {Mutually Assured Destruction} for attacks upon original starting forces only?


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @CrazyIvan Off topic and neat ideas but I like the fact your rule is "MAD" lol 🙂



  • Also, as mentioned up thread, a 2v1 infantry battle would always be a cheap win, and I'm not sure about what the wording was in my OP, that the spam filter ate, but I'm mainly concerned with a stronger force being outscored by a weaker force, hence a 2v1 is probably something we could fix by stating that the MAD only is used when their IS a stronger force, if 2v1 infantry wouldn't get the MAD rule involved, as the forces are evenly balance, and so let the dice decide that, but if it is 3v1, then MAD kicks in, and the lone defender dies to kill one attacker.

    And thanks, I had to take a while to come up with a catchy name, and MAD gets 'er done!



  • wow this game has unlimited nerd potential lol but seriously if people want to program more options and put them in then cool. I really like LL and adding more options just adds more variety for the players so ok and I might try this extra option if I'm playing someone who wants to use it



  • I am interested in seeing how this plays out, but would have to do it in a manual dice format until the coding could be implemented. As a first time poster here, the spam filter kept eating my post, and so the version that served to open this thread was just a quick note, and not all that I had written initially.

    I'm mainly concerned to stop the program from 'rolling' excessive hits in the 1/d6 or 1-2/d6 types, and then having further bad things happen as a result. My MAD cannot stop 12 out of 12 defenders getting hits, but when those defenders are facing a stronger force, they take a hit as well, and so at least there is that.


  • Donators

    @CrazyIvan

    MAD is a beautiful thing. It keeps people in line : )

    Welcome to the triplea site



  • Thanks! I'm new to TripleA and to A&A.org, but the sites look a lot alike, so once I figure out some parts of one, they'll let me figure out the other fast.



  • Ok, to expound on this further...

    LL is in place, and works to smooth out really wild random results, but it does nothing about the engine rolling exceptional numbers of 1's and 2's and throwing off the game quite a bit, by the sheer numbers of such rolls.

    LL+MAD cannot address that happening, so all the annoying over rolling of 1's and 2's is still going to happen, and your still going to lose units that you really shouldn't. That being said, the rationale for including {Mutually Assured Destruction} on top of LL, is to stop rolls of less that 1/6th probability from taking the game far away from where they 'should be' if probable result were the norm.

    Take the example of the single bomber attacking the single transport. Transport hitting the bomber is a 1 in 6 chance, and that is fine and dandy. What isn't fine and dandy, is where the attacking bomber misses the transport, because now we are talking about a 1:18 chance, and given such a situation, with a very low probability entering into the game, does not even address any further damage to the game that then occurs as a result of this low probability event.

    As mentioned above, MAD cannot stop the overabundance of 1's and 2's being rolled, but what it can do is make the madness stop before it really gets out of hand. The mechanism for this is to apply LL, and then check for one forces remainder to be larger than the other. If both sides have the same remainder, then the disparity check fails, and MAD does not apply. If the disparity check succeeds, then MAD uses a single die, and this number is used for both sides.

    In the above example, Bomber Vs Transport, we check for disparity of remainder after applying LL, and this confirms that MAD is in effect. On a roll of 5-6, both sides miss each other, on a 2-4, the bomber kills the transport and survives, and on a 1, they both kill each other! Thus, all the probable outcomes of at least 1:6 are not affected by this rule, rather, this rule prevents outcomes less likely than 1 in 6, and the game then become a step closer to strategy, and one step farther away from becoming a series of "Lucky Shots, Sir" moments.

    Another example, a fighter and two infantry Vs one or two infantry, so 5:3(5:4) Without MAD, we could easily see the stronger force missing, while the weaker force 'gets lucky' and takes out part of the opposition. In the 5v3 battle, 1:6 chance the stronger force doesn't get a kill, but reduce that by 50%, and we now have a 1:12 chance for the stronger force to be hit by the weaker force, while themselves not getting a hit of their own in. In the 5v4 battle, this comes in at 1:9 chance.

    Looking at some real game, round one battles, Russia attacks Manchuria.
    5@1 + 1@3 = 8
    3@2 + 1@4 = 10

    With LL, this is settled by a pair of dice rolls, 1-2 v 1-4, while MAD uses just one roll for both remainders, 1-2 both sides get second hit, 3-4 Japanese hit twice while the Russians hit just the once, and 5-6, both side miss their chance. Best case for the weaker force, is two mutual kills, as this leaves both sides even balanced, and with no remainder, so second round each side takes it's third casualty, and in the third round, the Russian force is now the stronger force, and need not fear taking any greater casualties than they inflict.

    Gosh! it's late, bedtime for me...


  • Donators

    I used to play the Classic (1984) version with a friend using no luck rules. The game was different but quite interesting.


  • Admin

    Seeing this thread late, I really like the idea here and have found LL to be flawed. My gripe is that many of the first round battles are 1 unit vs 1 unit, the luck in those battles then dictate the course of the rest of the game. That always felt really painful to me as you spend the rest of the game fighting a lost war due to luck at the beginning, and post-round1, the larger army LL mechanics make the battles predictable.

    I'd likely prefer this variant of LL over LL.



  • i think to remove randomness in this game is like poker with an ordered deck. Sure the hands will be very orderly but by taking the randomness out of it you are really taking a fundamental aspect of game out of the picture. Part of your strategy should be to allow for things to go against you imo.

    That being said i do understand why people like LL and a version of it the effect of it were always even would be interesting to try at least.

    also, this over rolling of 1's and 2's, this is the first ive heard of that. here is 14 round 6 sided game stats as well as a 28 round 12 sider stats they look pretty good to me. 😛

    Screen Shot 2019-07-06 at 6.55.48 AM.png Screen Shot 2019-07-06 at 6.56.17 AM.png


Log in to reply