@LaFayette destryoers do not negate subs powers in TWW

I haven't followed too closely here, but G 40 House Rules mod uses Destroyers that are not "isDestroyer" as well.

Idk if that affects the proposed change, but it's a key part of how the mod works.

Could you @ubernaut present a specific example from TWW?

Also, i'm not saying this is a dice versus LL thing but the rules of the game and our engine is based on the principle of dice. Any change to the way those outcomes should be expected versus the established rules presents an issue in my mind at least.

The current algorithm has a "first strike", "first strike regular", and a "general" phase. The "first strike" phase is used when there is no destroyer. The "first strike regular" is used when there is a destroyer. The code needs to be updated so that "first strike regular" and "general" are merged. To do that, "general" needs to know if the subs are firing in the "first strike" phase or not.

My idea is to set up the "firing squardrons" at the beginning of the battle turn and assign the unittypes to the different groups depending on the presence of destroyers. Then the firing groups would just fire normally.

Putting that to the side, the described change should not have any effective difference to dice games as well. Otherwise, any examples of how it would are being requested so we can look at them. I'd much rather this thread get away from "IDK, this feels like a big change" to more concrete examples that we should look at and decide if they can be addressed.

LL is a thing that we invented to make battle outcomes more predictable. we should remember despite the value of this enhanced predictability to certain players it is dampening a key aspect of the game, war is messy, not predictable, and specifically to this point sub warfare should be more unpredictable than regular battle whether or not you are trying to make things more predictable than normal anyway, IMO.

Additionally, if this change were made universally it would definitely seem to break maps like TWW where the sub destroyer dynamic is totally different.

@ff03k64 said in Idea: Change LL - Neutralized Subs Roll With Main Combat Roll:

If i know that the destroyer or expensive boat hit in this situation

... (defenders always roll last).

Oh, that would make a difference. My brain can't think my next though through right now. What if it was defenders with subs and the attacker is trying to decide on which casualties to take between destroyers and expensive ships?

I just can't even think of how that battle would go right now.

If a map has the "WW2V2" property, then the subs must fire at a separate time from the rest of the units. The presence of a destroyer doesn't affect it.

Just for completeness:
Also in v1 where Destroyers are not even part of the game. There is nothing that prevents an attacking submarine from executing its First Strike Shot.

On the other side of the token, some of those properties are less significant or perhaps do not break LL as frequently or as badly. Suicide units do not stick around, it makes more sense for them to roll separately (to almost pretend that the suicide units is fighting a first battle, one-time battle).

The cannot target by is a case where we would see more 'rounds' of rolls and that is certainly places where you have more dice. The most notable example that is prevalent is boats & sub attacking boats & air.

To another extent, the overwhelming majority of games are WWII games where the extent of the 'cannot target' variations is only the sub vs air case. I don't know if there is a way to ever fix that for LL, probably not. In practice though, I think it's the case that the out-of-order first strike rolls with DD present on both sides (and no air) has actually zero practical effect on battle other than adding additional 'phases' to the combat which breaks up the rolling and grants one side or the other more rolls than they would otherwise get under LL rules.

@Trevan said in Idea: Change LL - Neutralized Subs Roll With Main Combat Roll:

If a map has the "WW2V2" property, then the subs must fire at a separate time from the rest of the units. The presence of a destroyer doesn't affect it.

But, if a map doesn't have "WW2V2" property, then the fact that subs fire at a separate time from the rest of the units even when a destroyer is around should be changed. I think @Panther even mentioned that that is most likely a bug.

I agree that this should be fixed. The updated rule idea is therefore more applicable to WW2V2.

Fundamentally the problem is how do we solve LL scenarios where units are rolling more dice than they "should". Any battle is supposed to have just one die roll, never more than one. In v3 because you have a defenders roll against non-air and defenders roll against air, you can have 3 units with a power under 6 rolling three dice and getting three hits (an effective power of 18!). If an attacking force has 3 units and a power of 12, then the defenders can wipe out this attacking force with high luck and less than half the strength.

So you are thinking of changing how LL is calculated to handle the case where there are groups of units that currently have to fire separately? Interesting. AA's firing groups are affected by this a lot and canNotTarget, canNotBeTargetedBy, and suicideOnHit are affected as well.

If a map has the "WW2V2" property, then the subs must fire at a separate time from the rest of the units. The presence of a destroyer doesn't affect it.

But, if a map doesn't have "WW2V2" property, then the fact that subs fire at a separate time from the rest of the units even when a destroyer is around should be changed. I think @Panther even mentioned that that is most likely a bug.

I agree that this should be fixed. The updated rule idea is therefore more applicable to WW2V2.

Fundamentally the problem is how do we solve LL scenarios where units are rolling more dice than they "should". Any battle is supposed to have just one die roll, never more than one. In v3 because you have a defenders roll against non-air and defenders roll against air, you can have 3 units with a power under 6 rolling three dice and getting three hits (an effective power of 18!). If an attacking force has 3 units and a power of 12, then the defenders can wipe out this attacking force with high luck and less than half the strength.

If i know that the destroyer or expensive boat hit in this situation

That knowledge comes after you select casualties (all of them), so you'll never know whether destroyer or expensive boat hit before selecting casualties in any scenario (defenders always roll last).

Maybe the scenario is when selecting casualties of sub vs DD. Let's say you have one sub against another sub and DD. Maybe you want to keep the sub for its own first strike (perhaps as a counter-attack in the next round). But again here, the sub first strike initial roll comes before you gain any further information at all. In this scenario, all attacker dice are rolled and casualties selected before there is any return fire. Hence, you do not gain any knowledge in this scenario.

So we can rule out the only subs vs anything else scenario I think. In any such scenario, all of the attacking subs roll first, you have to choose all casualties before you gain any new information, whether there is a skipped first strike phase or not does not matter.

The main point of this thread is whether to stop having subs fire differently in any rule set where the subs firing out of order has no material impact.

If a map has the "WW2V2" property, then the subs must fire at a separate time from the rest of the units. The presence of a destroyer doesn't affect it.

But, if a map doesn't have "WW2V2" property, then the fact that subs fire at a separate time from the rest of the units even when a destroyer is around should be changed. I think @Panther even mentioned that that is most likely a bug.

Then you are left with a sub vs dd and expensive boat, in which case you are faced with the same dilemna again and the 'early information' is moot.

If the sub hits, this is when early information is relevant. If i know that the destroyer or expensive boat hit in this situation, i take the destroyer as a casualty. If i don't know that my destroyer or expensive boat hit, i might take the expensive boat so that the destroyer can negate the first strike again, and make it more likely to kill the sub next turn. especially if the expensive boat happens to be a low attack or defense boat (carrier).

Let's take the same example of sub vs sub, dd, and expensive boat.

If the sub hits, you choose the sub as a casualty. Then you are left with a sub vs dd and expensive boat, in which case you are faced with the same dilemna again and the 'early information' is moot.

I wonder if there is a case where it really does change the OOL? I wonder if maybe there are more subs vs that same group. With the surface boats firing after the subs, the number of return hits is still unknown and I don't see how that can change the OOL.

To come up with a counter example, we need a scenario where the knowledge about the number of sub changes how those casualties are assigned. Having a concrete example to think through would be excellent. I think it is a very truthy statement, and something I have taken for granted and figured was probably true, but now am challenging whether the out of ordering rolls impacts OOL. After having gone on a TripleA binge in the last week where subs were breaking LL, it did not look like there were any examples in V2 where a situation with no planes, DD on both sides, where the staggered rolling made any difference to OOL.

"we are discussing nothing new here"

The main point of this thread is whether to stop having subs fire differently in any rule set where the subs firing out of order has no material impact.

@LaFayette said in Idea: Change LL - Neutralized Subs Roll With Main Combat Roll:

@Panther said in Idea: Change LL - Neutralized Subs Roll With Main Combat Roll:

If a lonely submarine fights against a destroyer and a carrier and scores a hit during the opening fire step it does matter which casualty is chosen at that time

Does it? There are three combat phases here, first strike, offense, defense. It does not matter whether the sub rolls during first strike here or offense.

While not what i was thinking, this is a good example. I could choose the destroyer first, and hope that either the sub or destroyer get a hit, and then i save my expensive unit, or i could keep the destroyer in fear that i an not going to get a hit this round to make sure the sub doesn't get a first strike next round.

Thank you, @ff03k64 .

@LaFayette This example illustrates why the time when casualty selection has to take place is an important aspect of the rules.

@LaFayette said in Idea: Change LL - Neutralized Subs Roll With Main Combat Roll:

The fact that the first strike units roll first always is more for simplicity and consistency.

Maybe in some TripleA implementations, but not by the rules.

@Panther I was referring to the rules on that account, if subs are incorrectly rolling during first strike then it is all the more to the point.

In the discussed context/example the rules enforce a decision about casualty selection under uncertainty. I don't know on what you base your "... is more for simplicity and consistency"-statement.

It is only TripleA on some maps/rulesets that enforces submarines to fire during an opening fire step that does not exist in those rulesets, so maybe this implementation is "for simplicity and consistency". There the result is vice versa. In those rulesets, even when a destroyer cancels a submarine's Surprise Strike ability, TripleA irregularly lets the submarines fire first and irregularly enforces a casualty selection, despite the fact, that this selection would be needed only later - when the other dice results are visible.

We are discussing nothing new here. All of this has been part of Github issues and forum discussions in the past. I have not checked this lately so maybe some aspects have been resolved in the meantime...

@Panther said in Idea: Change LL - Neutralized Subs Roll With Main Combat Roll:

If a lonely submarine fights against a destroyer and a carrier and scores a hit during the opening fire step it does matter which casualty is chosen at that time

Does it? There are three combat phases here, first strike, offense, defense. It does not matter whether the sub rolls during first strike here or offense.

While not what i was thinking, this is a good example. I could choose the destroyer first, and hope that either the sub or destroyer get a hit, and then i save my expensive unit, or i could keep the destroyer in fear that i an not going to get a hit this round to make sure the sub doesn't get a first strike next round.

The fact that the first strike units roll first always is more for simplicity and consistency.

Maybe in some TripleA implementations, but not by the rules.

@Panther I was referring to the rules on that account, if subs are incorrectly rolling during first strike then it is all the more to the point.

@LaFayette I could see situations where the OoL might change depending on how the subs roll. If they are particularly lucky or unlucky (at least in dice) I might take different losses. Obviously, that is different in LL. I am not exactly sure how LL works, so not much comment on that.

Can you come up with an example?

If a lonely submarine fights against a destroyer and a carrier and scores a hit during the opening fire step it does matter which casualty is chosen at that time

Does it? There are three combat phases here, first strike, offense, defense. It does not matter whether the sub rolls during first strike here or offense.

If all casualties get to fire back, that will never change the order of losses that someone selects. It does not matter if the subs were the ones that rolled a hit or if it's destroyers.

You are wrong when assuming that all casualties get to fire back and generalizing the topic to this situation. During the opening fire step you usually don't know how many units involved in the battle will score how many hits. If a lonely submarine fights against a destroyer and a carrier and scores a hit during the opening fire step it does matter which casualty is chosen at that time. If both opposing units don't score the selection how to assign the submarine's hit might be totally different later - when already knowing the result of both rolls.

The fact that the first strike units roll first always is more for simplicity and consistency.

Maybe in some TripleA implementations, but not by the rules.

Anyway, Trevan and me have already sorted it out:
There is no dissent when talking about rulesets where TripleA incorrectly rolls for a submarine at the wrong time (creating an Opening Fire Step that by the rules does not exist).