Moderate luck option?

[Cernel]

And, as I said, also the current Low Luck option would be a subset of what I said, with:

Special Luck = true
Special Luck Dice = diceside (normally 6)

This would be the setting of games having Low Luck default, and you could play dice by setting it false, or play some less low luck by setting it true and at 5 or 4, or play as per @CrazyG by setting it true and at 3, or go for high luck by setting it true and at 1.

[Cernel]

@Cernel Sorry, actually no, just noticed now.

This is as per @CrazyG :

If I attack with 16 total power, I would roll 4 dice at 3/6, and 1 dice at 4/6

While what I said would have ended with 5 dice at 3/6 and 1 dice at 1/6.
So not exactly the same.

Anyways, I'm not really that interested in this matter, as I personally believe that regular dice is just fine, as long as the map is fine for it.

[David_VanDyke]

I don't like the force grouping idea so much, as it one of the irritations of any LL game for me is that way it rewards meticulousness most, rather than strategy. I don't like the idea of an option that rewards even more detailed planning and pre-calculation of each battle, trying to refine most likely outcomes, than LL already does.

However, I'm totally on board with Cernel's proposal to choose per game:

Special Luck = true/false
Special Luck Dice = X

This gives player the greatest flexibility and over time and play would "let the market decide" best of all the proposals IMO.

My gut says the midrange players, the ones that want a mid-luck option, would settle on 4, but it might be 3 or 5 after all.

The "half dice" option seems like merely a subset of this, set to 3.

[redrum]

@David_VanDyke @Cernel Fair point, I edited by previous point to add that the second option could be done with more flexibility. At this point unless there are other ideas, I think it boils down to probably choosing 1 of the 2 options I laid out then deciding exactly how best to implement and name them. In theory, both could be added though probably best to pick one to start with.

[Zim Xero]

The Hepps suggested method is a logical middle ground between Luck and LL.

As far as playability... it offeres more luck that some players prefer, while at the same time, eliminating the possibility of a stack of 20 attacking infantry getting lucky with 8 or 9 hits. Everyone hates stacking luck of the 1s.

[CrazyG]

@Cernel
Great mind thinks alike? Sorry I didn't understand your initial proposal, the flexibility is a fine addition on top of my suggestion. I hope that 50% would become the standard used though

I want to point out that Hepps suggestion won't be much different than LL on maps like the NWO series, which is probably where I want to see the strafing behavior changed the most. Keep in mind that defenders get LL too, and on many maps its quite common to see all defenders firing on the same value (like infantry or artillery on a 2). Being able to guarantee the defenders damage is never more than X is a big deal, especially for trading territory with aircraft

BTW, do we need to consider anti-aircraft attacks? If I recall correctly there were certain things you couldn't do with AA in low luck.

[Hepps]

@redrum That seems like a fair analysis

[David_VanDyke]

@Zim-Xero if by the "Hepps suggested method" you mean low-lucking separated by roll (1, 2s, 3s, etc), I strongly disagree that that would be the best option. That's merely LL 2.0. I want moderate luck with a compressed, steepened bell curve, not a more complex, more figure-intensive LL with a tiny bit more variability. Frankly, I want dice without the extremes, not LL with a little more spice.

One alternative brute-force method would be to place upper and lower bounds on the dice results of, say, plus or minus 50%.

Let's say the statistically average hits are 8 for your firing round. The algo could simply chop off results below 4 and above 12.

[CrazyG]

I had a good discussion with Hepps about this topic. An idea that came up was basically Hepps' suggestion, but with one more addition.

Make it optional for each level of dice. So I could set my 1's and 2's to LL, but still roll the 3's and 4's normally.

It seems like a pretty clean solution. You can reduce the variance on the units you want to have low variance. Since offensive units tend not to have only 1 attack it does a pretty good job of reducing strafing.You can leave the dice effects on other units. This address a lot of the concerns raised by Black Elk and VanDyke.

Plus its flexible and can customizible.

[David_VanDyke]

@CrazyG I'm okay with trying that. It's not my optimum solution, but it's much closer.

I presume it would be selectable once at the start of the game, but then it would be fixed in place?

[Zim Xero]

@David_VanDyke: I understand what you want. Keep in mind that "medium luck" should be something any player can visualize and play out on a board game without using a calculator.. Another possiblility, besides CrazyG's which might cause a lobby to argue over what settings to use.... would be to make it Low Luck per specific engaging unit type:

4 armor defending at 2
8 infantry defending at 2

The defending player would get 3 automatic hits. Remaining armor would hit on a 2. Remaining infantry would hit on a 4.

[prastle]

@Zim-Xero think i like it ! and YES we need something they can math in their head.

[David_VanDyke]

@Zim-Xero That's a slightly tweaked version of what was proposed above (LL per roll number). All that does is cause people to do more calculations to try to minimax the desired "sure thing" result. It will have no positive effect on the strafing problem, and little on the problem of large stacks.

The best solution is one that encourages NO head-calculations, but simply narrows the variability of the dice.

[CrazyG]

Just so this thread is even farther from a consensus, I'll add another idea

What if Medium Luck rolled your 4 highest dice, but then the remaining units use LL. The number of dice could be adjusted

Super simple and easy to understand. I think its enough to reduce predictable battles

[prastle]

@CrazyG why 4?
maybe it rolls all dice over 3?

[CrazyG]

@prastle
Rolling all dice higher than 3 is similar to a suggestion from earlier

No particular reason to pick 4 dice. It just sounded about right no me, I would guess that you could select exactly how many get rolled (and 0 would just be LL)

[prastle]

@CrazyG yah we are creating a long argument here that lasted for years in lobby

just throwing my 2 cents in

[David_VanDyke]

So rather than creating a long argument, let's try something.

See if it works and is popular.

If not, try something else.

But trying something that's farthest from LL, while still reducing dice variability, is the goal. Nobody's going to pry the LL people from their spreadsheets and slide rules. There's nothing wrong with LL if that's the game you want to play. The sand in the gears is the high variability of dice. That needs to be reduced to moderation, not lowered to barely above the LL of today.

[prastle]

@David_VanDyke to clarify i am fine with anything new:) and will give it a shot

[Black_Elk]

CrazyG made an interesting point there in passing. Under the current LL scheme the advantage to attacker over the defender is pretty extreme, the strafe and airblitz being prime examples. Unlike in dice, where rush air defense (whether with fighters or bombers) or a lucky AA shot can be equally potent, in LL it seems like more often than not it's the defender getting the shaft from the air.

I wonder if a system that somehow compensates for this, by introducing more variability only on the defender's side might be worth exploring?

Not sure what that might look like exactly, but the basic idea is that the attacker can calculate their own hits to the Nth degree, but the defending opponent's hits might still hold some surprises. That would make it harder to predict perfect strafes or the perfect airblitz or the perfect bombing raid. Since the defender could throw a wrench in your plans. Something beyond just hitting on the usual remainder, like the remainder hit doubles in some cases?