Does it have to be a D6?

[andy816]

I'm not a long term Beta tester, only began at Leeds, so to date have 10 games under my belt.

I am finding the game intriguing very well thought out and very cleverley fine tuned. However like some other postings have indicated i am beginning to feel that luck seems to play too big a part in the game. Uncertainty is something that is required in any good wargame but if the scope for uncertainty is too vast it can be a negative influence.

From my perspective the biggest culprit of what appears to be excessive uncertainty in these rules is the D6. It seems to be a very coarse tool to use as the arbitrator between cause and effect and far coarser than all of the cleverly calculated mechanisms the rules use.

So do we have to use D6?

Cheers

Andy Robinson

[dave_r]

So do we have to use D6?

What would you suggest then?

When I play Fire and Fury (which I really enjoy), you can get huge swings because they use a D10 for all tests. In fact it was a standing joke that as soon as you outnumbered your opponent 3:1 then you were bound to lose the combat...

An average dice just doesn't provide enough variation for me to provide any interest.

Whilst I understand that there is a fair amount of luck involved - I don't think this is a deciding factor in the game. You can have a bit of luck in an isolated area, but that shouldn't determine the outcome of the game.

[lawrenceg]

Having read a number of posts to do with luck, I'm coming to the conclusion that players go through three stages:

1. Beginner

You have no skill and don't know what to expect. Your strategies are largely random and game results are completely luck driven.

2. Inexperienced

You have now worked out what are good and bad ideas, i.e. how to shift the odds in the right direction. Your strategy hinges around shifting the odds so that you expect to win each subsection of the battle. However, you do not have a feel for how far the odds shift in that direction and tend to overstimate the shifts. E.g. "I've got a net + so I'm bound to win." In reality, the various factors in the game do not shift the odds all that much, so there is still a fair chance of an unexpected result. When that happens it is counter to your expectations so you really notice it and you do not have a plan to cope with it, so it can have a major effect on the game. Your strategies are based on "expected results" rather than on risk management.

3. Competent

You now realise that it is hard to shift the odds massively in your favour (there's no equivalent of the DBM "+3 can't double a +4 so I can't lose"). Your tactics now account for the fact that things may not go as expected. So you set up attacks where the odds are in your favour but if things go unexpectedly wrong you have a contingency plan in place to deal with it. If things go unexpectedly right you have a contingency plan to exploit it. Basically you now recognise that you are operating in an environment of uncertainty and are using approprate strategies.

My feeling is that stage 1 lasts 3-4 games so you qualify for "inexperienced" by the end of a tournament.
I'm guessing that stage 3 probably didn't arrive until 20+ games for the likes of Hammy, Bruce and the Authors.

I would say play another 10-20 games and then see if your games still feel like they are decided by luck.

Also remember that if your opponent is equal to you in skill, then it is not unrealistic for the game result to be decided by luck.

[andy816]

Having read a number of posts to do with luck, I'm coming to the conclusion that players go through three stages:

1. Beginner

You have no skill and don't know what to expect. Your strategies are largely random and game results are completely luck driven.

2. Inexperienced

You have now worked out what are good and bad ideas, i.e. how to shift the odds in the right direction. Your strategy hinges around shifting the odds so that you expect to win each subsection of the battle. However, you do not have a feel for how far the odds shift in that direction and tend to overstimate the shifts. E.g. "I've got a net + so I'm bound to win." In reality, the various factors in the game do not shift the odds all that much, so there is still a fair chance of an unexpected result. When that happens it is counter to your expectations so you really notice it and you do not have a plan to cope with it, so it can have a major effect on the game. Your strategies are based on "expected results" rather than on risk management.

3. Competent

You now realise that it is hard to shift the odds massively in your favour (there's no equivalent of the DBM "+3 can't double a +4 so I can't lose"). Your tactics now account for the fact that things may not go as expected. So you set up attacks where the odds are in your favour but if things go unexpectedly wrong you have a contingency plan in place to deal with it. If things go unexpectedly right you have a contingency plan to exploit it. Basically you now recognise that you are operating in an environment of uncertainty and are using approprate strategies.

My feeling is that stage 1 lasts 3-4 games so you qualify for "inexperienced" by the end of a tournament.
I'm guessing that stage 3 probably didn't arrive until 20+ games for the likes of Hammy, Bruce and the Authors.

I would say play another 10-20 games and then see if your games still feel like they are decided by luck.

Also remember that if your opponent is equal to you in skill, then it is not unrealistic for the game result to be decided by luck.

A nice post Lawrence, and i do resemble your stage 2 remark, in expected result syndrome especially. So perhaps it should be a D6 as arbitrator and i need aspire to reach a higher plane of understanding.

cheers

Andy

[hammy]

Having read a number of posts to do with luck, I'm coming to the conclusion that players go through three stages:

<snip an excellent post>

3. Competent

You now realise that it is hard to shift the odds massively in your favour (there's no equivalent of the DBM "+3 can't double a +4 so I can't lose"). Your tactics now account for the fact that things may not go as expected. So you set up attacks where the odds are in your favour but if things go unexpectedly wrong you have a contingency plan in place to deal with it. If things go unexpectedly right you have a contingency plan to exploit it. Basically you now recognise that you are operating in an environment of uncertainty and are using approprate strategies.

My feeling is that stage 1 lasts 3-4 games so you qualify for "inexperienced" by the end of a tournament.
I'm guessing that stage 3 probably didn't arrive until 20+ games for the likes of Hammy, Bruce and the Authors.

I would say play another 10-20 games and then see if your games still feel like they are decided by luck.

Also remember that if your opponent is equal to you in skill, then it is not unrealistic for the game result to be decided by luck.

Well I can say that after 20 odd games I am still finding that after games when I go through my post mortem I find there were plenty of things I could have done better.

I do agree that when you lose a fight you expected to win it can cause issues (like when my Roman Equites lost to Sassanid mob!!!) but generally if that kind of thing happens there is normally something else you should have been doing too. It's the same in DBM, after a year of recording my 'bad' luck I realised I wasn't that unlucky but I was taking risks I didn't need to take and risks where the reward was massively outweighed by the risk.

As to D6 I have no problem with D6, where AoW scores on the luck scale is by rolling multiple D6. If you roll one D100 then there is an even chance of any outcome. If you roll 3 D6 you get a nice bell curve.

Hammy the still not competent.

[markm]

This comes from a WAb perspective, as it has been my medicine of choice for the past 6/7 years.

It also uses a D6, and yes, there is an element of luck. But I can honestly say that in over 6 years of tournament play and hundreds of games that I have only ever lost 2 games due to attrocious dice.

I have lost combats and failed leadership tests where I didn't expect to, but you adapt, react and anticipate. You can use any randomisation method you want, but there will be occassions when things go 'tits up', just like they did in real ancient battles

TBH, and this is not a dig at the poster, the only game with next to no luck, is Chess. I want to play wargames, not Chess!

[rogerg]

We have discussed the luck aspect quite a lot. The tendency is to compare the situation to DBM, where you have luck in a lot of small packages. In AOW the dice situation seems more dramatic. Even more so, in that a BG can take a lot of bad luck with hits and then good luck with a cohesion test and death roll and not much changes. I find you need to approach the game with a different frame of mind to DBM. For me this is a good thing. AOW is a lot more entertaining providing you can live with the stress .

[shall]

We have discussed the luck aspect quite a lot. The tendency is to compare the situation to DBM, where you have luck in a lot of small packages. In AOW the dice situation seems more dramatic. Even more so, in that a BG can take a lot of bad luck with hits and then good luck with a cohesion test and death roll and not much changes. I find you need to approach the game with a different frame of mind to DBM. For me this is a good thing. AOW is a lot more entertaining providing you can live with the stress .

More exciting was an objective.and more stessful I guess somces with it too..rememebr 2 nose bleeds and a torn muscle at Usk!!

After approaching 50 games now.....

If I want to play easy going I can make the game luck related. If I play hard ball full on in a game, I can ususal bring both some decent skill as a wargamer and my specific knowledge of AOW odds to bear pretty easily.

At Leeds I played 3 games in very different styles - one a full frontal attempt to stop something difficult, one in full competition mode, and one sort of in between. I could have lost all three as all games have risk but the odds were stacked against me in (1) , heavily for me in (2) and a bit for me in (3) .

BUT what you have to do is view skill differently to DBM. There are no sure fire wins and no sure fire losers in AOW. But there are no mystery 6-1s either. But there is a lessre claamity on one BG of the double drop.

So you cannot win big by simply finding one little area to fight and win in. You need to play the big picture battle and timing across the whole table to exert pressure, play the odds and prepare to cover yourself when things inevitably go wrong soemwhere.

I find I need a much more macro plan and feel than a DBM game with regulars where I can solve all problems on the hoof. Much more a game of overall plan and risk management than micro-play. Interbound decisions are ciritcal I find.

What is nice I find isthat however well I feel I played I always feel the risk; and vice-versa.

Hope that helps

Si