And yeah, I swapped out a battleship with a couple tactical bombers and am back to my expected results.
Lets just chalk this one up to me being an idiot and never speak of it again
There is a concept in statistical analysis which I cannot remember the name of, the something valley, which explore those ends of the spectrum whom experience the rare phenomena of persistent aberration, sequential streaks of good or bad luck. Its a known thing and all one can do is shrug it off. Assuming of course I am not delusional or a just generally full of shit, I could have just been seeing statistically unlikely results and then tied them the recent spate of updates conflating correlation and cause. Its a pretty human mistake.
Yeah turn three is usually pretty solid even without any investment. Just send all infantry and aircraft east except what directly borders France and Belgium, and all tanks west (except the four in reserve from Silesia and Pomerania used to reinforce E Prussia). With that you can pretty much waffle stop both France and Russia without any effort. I usually wait the extra turn on France to get Britain to reinforce the capital with its aircraft, which makes clearing the Atlantic almost as easy as sacking France. Also, the more I send in, the more I retain after, and I like to take Spain fairly quickly. In a multiplayer game I would be less concerned about any of that, but since none of the Axis AI seem to be able to do anything meaningful at sea and Italy won't bother with more than or two Spanish territories it sort of falls on me to exploit those
As for the extra casualties, I just mean the 50/50 die
Alright, well, sorry for ringing the alarm then. Guess I just lost my touch. At least I have some uphill battles to look forward to getting it back.
I can't play as the Allies. It's a little too easy. As the Axis, all the positions are kind of fun because no matter how well you do yourself someone else is folding up elsewhere and you are constantly pivoting to compensate and alleviate the pressure on them. I like that. It is also kind of rewarding when something totally unexpected happens like Taiwan taking Borneo then surging through India. Its not the same watching China push Hisaichi's shit in
Trust me, I also have issues with the AI, but if I play more than one country the game becomes a steamroll. Up until about round 8 where I usually take Russia the AI is competent enough. After that Japan starts doing some really wonky stuff and becomes really unreliable, if Italy hasn't managed to secure north Africa at that point then the US will be a nuisance, and even if they have they also begin doing some really wonky stuff. . .And you are absolutely right a lot of it has to do with sea warfare.
The Axis has tremendous naval issues but the US fleet seems to work pretty well. Its far more aggressive and effective than Japan. I really don't know. The British are very decent also. Not sure where the problem could be.
If I have one major grievance it is Romania, who would be best served taking Greece along side Italy and opening the Turkish front hopefully with Italian support again. I would also prefer if all the AI would stick to their own fronts rather than constantly trying to reinforce my own. It is exasperating taking a territory, losing it the next turn to Russia, only to have another country take it and force me to defend their claim in order to continue to push.
Lastly, I am well aware of confirmation bias, but the game prior to my posting I had been tracking the rolls with some scratch paper and made a general estimate of the odds that I ended up with, and they felt about on par with what I had been seeing. I wouldn't have said anything if I had been wrong. I had been biting my tongue on this for weeks. I still maintain losing the option of extra casualties would improve the single player experience though, without the chaos factor is comes down to pure strategy which, well, does short the AI a bit but in a single player run that hinders as much as it helps since much of one's success is contingent upon your allies.
EDIT: Yeah, I have never taken Paris in two rounds in WaW. Round 4 is the norm, but at that point I usually have naval superiority over the Atlantic which allows me to sweep through Spain as I take Russia, I find myself in good position at that point to sack Britain and hit the US properly. . .Not that that has been working for me lately. lol
It bares mentioning I have never actually used the battle simulation tool to figure out my odds of success and frequently do ill advised things like using bombers to mop up isolated units behind enemy lines to break up reinforcement chains. Nothing is more bitter than losing a bomber to infantry.
Maybe I am neurotic, but I really don't think so.
I just resent having to cheat to win, it makes victory meaningless -all the moreso when one is playing alone- and over the last three months or so it seems as though my outcomes have been different than those I have come to know over the years.
You say its honest then I won't call you a liar. . .But I hope you will take me up on my proposal. Just play two games of WaW, one with low luck and one without and see if it doesn't feel as though a disparity exists between how often the additional casualties proc for AI and player. I fully expect to lose when playing Italy, or Finland (the latter being my favorite, because I am a sucker for punishment), but with Germany it should be a coin flip as to whether you can beat Russia down sufficiently before the US comes swinging through. . .
Admittedly, it could also be the way I play. With Germany I tend to build two battlleships first turn and keep a balance between naval and ground forces to keep the US out of the Atlantic for a couple more turns as I can contain the British. It really could be my margins are so tight even just a minor variation is enough to offset my chances. . .Except I have been playing for so long with more or less the same strategies that I cannot convince myself that is the case.
Anyway I appreciate you getting back to me and will leave this in your capable hands.
Look, your 50/50 chance of extra casualties. . .fucking sucks to be absolutely frank.
I understand why it is a weighted mechanic. It makes up for the clueless AI and makes games with more than one player more competitive. . .But destroys single player games. I cannot win a game anymore without save scumming because every AI gets their extra casualties every time they attack, while I get it maybe a third of the time, and they also proctor every time they defend, where as I might see it a quarter of the time on defense. I can't consistently take double damage and deal half damage and still be effective in a game, and I don't think many others could either. Yes I have the setting on hard, yes I choose underdog nations. Yes I am playing the largest and most complex maps available like World at War and Liebowski variants. I accept not every battle is going to go my way and this has always been a present issue with Low Luck games. . .So I used to avoid it by simply not using low luck. . .but as of the last few builds, that doesn't make a difference. I have no idea what has changed, but clicking off no luck doesn't result in more randomized results as it used to.
I have been playing this off and on for a decade, its my background activity when I am waiting for things to render or stack and have to keep an eye on things to ensure nothing fails out. . .And man this wrecking my joy.
I don't want to muck things up for anyone else. I am not asking for a sweeping change to how dice are used elsewhere, just please consider adding a setting specifically for single player games where the extra damage can be turned off completely or be used with less weight added for the AI.
If you think I am delusional, please, play World at War with low luck and without as Germany with everyone else hard. See if you can win a game without having to either take control of an allied AI, or save scumming the major battles. I am on the level with this.