Thank you for watching this piece of our full interview with Trent Oster, CEO of Beamdog! What questions do you have for Trent Oster and the Beamdog team?
Beamdog has a Reddit AMA coming up. Ask us anything! Head to reddit's r/Boardgames on Friday, August 20, 2021 from 10am-12pm PDT for your chance to chat live with us about Axis & Allies 1942 Online! Event: AMA with Axis & Allies 1942 Online Date: Friday, August 20, 2021 Time: 10am-12pm PDT Link: www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/ Personally I'm going to ask them when they plan to clearly and openly acknowledge the differences between 1942 Online and 1942 Second Edition in their product description that customers buy the game based off of.
i have read a lot about RNG and the only way to truely have a random number is to add chaos to the formulae : natural randomness will never have a fixed condition to create a seed. There will be similar context, never identical. I experimented with code that would read raw data from a temperature sensor and built a seed from it. It was a fun experiment! :D
Wow! That does sound like a cool experiment. I read an article about once that talked about a RNG that pulls a number from a some kind of object in space that was being monitored by NASA that was emitting radio waves at random frequencies. It would use those random frequencies to generate a number at the instant it was requested based on what that thing in space was doing. No idea how it worked, but it was an interesting article. Thanks for watching!
@Aardvark Pepper - I am looking forward to that AMA from Beamdog. Thanks for the reminder to add it to my calendar. As for your question, I have seen you mention this topic before. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the Beamdog program and the OOB rules for 1942.2 is that carriers and transports can't take friendly non-native units as cargo. (Did I miss something else?) I understand how that minor change can affect game play and possible strategies, but I am not sure it is that minor change has that big of an impact. If this rule were to made to match the OOB rules for 1942.2, I think we would see a lot more Allied victories as that rule allows for the Americans to more quickly get involved in Europe. Why do you think this is such significant issue?
(Edit - Re-read my reply, realized it came off badly. I had meant it to address some players that find issue with Beamdog's PRNG implementation (did not mean to address or imply Board Game Nation had any unfair expectations of developers), it came off that way and I apologize. I'm saying I think concerns over PRNG implementation are reasonable, but to think about what Beamdog's responsibilities really are, whether it's really reasonable to expect them to put the money and time in to investigating the matter. It was said by some that I care about the PRNG issue, but for me product description is a 10, rules as written a 9, chat and social functions an 8, PRNG is way down on the scale for me. As to Beamdog's handling of concerns over PRNG, that is another matter.) I'll write here what I've written elsewhere many times. First, I don't think it's fair to put the expectation on the developers that they correctly evaluate PRNG outcomes. There is literature about PRNG evaluation, but Axis and Allies outcomes are correctly evaluated as *groups* of dice, rather than individual dice, which, as far as I've seen in the literature has not been done (as most PRNG applications do not require evaluation as *groups* of dice like Axis and Allies types games do). If mathematicians haven't done it, then how can we fairly expect Beamdog to handle that? They're a video game company. That's not to be dismissive, I am saying writing papers about proper PRNG evaluation when it comes to games similar to Axis and Allies is not reasonably in Beamdog's purview. If the developers don't look into the mathematics deeply, at least Beamdog should repeatedly make the point they haven't dug into the matter? Again, I don't think so. Reasonably, Beamdog could just say they use a PRNG, that the issues users experience are issues inherent to PRNGs, and mostly leave it at that. But this is not what has been done. The repeated claims are it is "proved" there is no issue, that all perceived issues are simply a matter of perception. But it has not been proved. It can never be proved, because that is simply not how statistical analysis works. It can only be said that given a particular dataset, gathered under particular conditions, that no issues were found using a particular methodology, looking for particular flaws that may or may not be the flaws that should be looked for. But Beamdog has actually done that? I don't believe they have (NOT that I take issue with that), and you can look to this video (and elsewhere, should you have a mind). But in this video, Trent says the 1s are "exactly" the same as the 2s and so forth . . . exactly? If you're getting exactly the same numbers, that's actually suspicious. Flip a coin twenty times, the probability of exactly ten heads and ten tails is less than 18%. But Trent was just speaking colloquially? But look at the methodology described. They do not speak of looking at dice considered as sub-groups. They speak of looking at dice as an undifferentiated mass. This is not how Axis and Allies outcomes work. Take a simplified example. Suppose we play a game with only tanks. Whenever my tanks attack, I roll 1, 2, or 3. Whenever your tanks defend, they roll 4, 5, or 6. When you look at the dice as an undifferentiated mass, there is no issue. It is only when you group the tanks into my tanks and your tanks that the issue becomes obvious. The response often given is "the behavior is not programmed in". But the issue is not whether the behavior is programmed to happen or not. The issue is whether there is problematic behavior or not. Emergent behavior happens. No engineer planned for the Tacoma Narrows bridge to collapse during planning, yet it did. Ask anyone with programming experience what a bug is, if they can just write one program that works correctly on all hardware and software setups. All this, I expect most will dismiss out of hand. But as far as I've ever seen statements or interviews about PRNG evaluation out of Beamdog, I've never seen anything resembling what I thought proper methodology. You don't see specific hypotheses tested, you don't see specific datasets, you never see any mention of any specific conditions under which data was purportedly collected. I don't say that would be easy, I don't even say Beamdog is responsible for doing all that. I am saying pronouncements that everything is all right are rather premature. It really isn't known whether there is an issue or not, and I do not mean in some vague "all viewpoints are equal so who really knows", I mean *it is not known*, proper proofs have not been presented one way or another.
Yes! I think a part of it is people also remember the times their bombers die but not the times the bombers survive and even get crazy results (like 4-6 damage)
I know what you mean. I think bombing raids have a very specific purpose. I typically only use them near the end of a game to speed up the demise of a turtled capital and only after I have a significant economic advantage. Thanks for watching!
At least once, my British Pacific fleet wiped out the very strong Japanese fleet at Dutch East Indies without a single casualty on turn one. That was some killer dice.
I have been playing since the game came out in the 80's but am new to the online and loving it. Yes, my bombers get shot down at what seems a 90% clip and my fighters only hit at about a 10% clip. I think that is how most players feel at least lmao - Thanks guys!
So this is something no one is talking about. The names of the different types of rolling and how they are COMPLETELY counter intuitive. 'Biased dice' makes me think it's bias against me. 'Low luck' makes me think the computer will purposefully display more misses. How about standard = random dice, bias = realistic feel dice, low luck = formula driven dice. Who's with me! Great vid BTW.
That is an interesting thought. I am wondering if people play differently with the different dice configurations. Fewer ones and sixes? Does that help or hurt different strategies? Thanks for watching!
I am not sure. I don't know the term "realistic feel dice". Is that from another game? Random dice, called Standard in AAO, is supposed to have an equal chance of rolling a 1 as there is to roll a 6. I hope this helps. Thanks for watching!
Standard dice are standard dice. Grocery stores don't sell "nonpoisonous" tomatoes because they're all supposed to be nonpoisonous, right? Same for dice, they are supposed to be random, right? If bias dice work as described in this video those are not "realistic" dice. They are weighted to 3 and 4, and what does that mean? Less AA hits, more tank and fighter hits, less infantry and artillery hits. which, well, biased dice, there you go. Not biased as in personal bias, but bias as in, well, biased. As to Low Luck, that's a naming convention for the same system already used for years by some players in the community. A claim made by some is Low Luck is "more strategic". But it simply reduces the range of outcomes from a divergent multi-peak model to a near single-peak model. Though Low Luck players don't need nearly the ability to plan for openings created by dice outcomes / plan for contingencies in case of dice failure, Low Luck players do need to correctly predict the sharply limited outcomes, or an opponent can punish their inaccuracies. Different, but I would not say superior.
No the randomness is fine but I still think the AA Strategic Bombing dice are bugged. I’ll use bombers and fighters to attack an AA territory and they take losses liked you’d expect but 95% of my bombers get shot down on the first roll when bombing factories.
The Serge thing is hilarious though! We do that when playing the actual board game. One lone infantry like wiping out 5 guys is pretty hilarious. That being said it doesn't happen every single battle like bombing raids.
Wonder if they ever did an analysis on the frequency/infrequency of streaks (e.g., all 1s). It's fine to say the statistical likelihood of each die value is the same across a large number of rolls, but that doesn't mean statistically improbable streaks don't happen.
Hahaha, I used to play the Board Game, but also the old Computer version (1998). It was hilarious how many people online would get angry at strange results, but... I agree with the Dev here, they ABSOLUTELY forget all the crazy rolls that happened during the board game itself. I never really saw anything more outrageous than some of the crazy things that happened on the board. I once witnessed 5 out of 5 transports hit on a 1 in the board game, destroying pretty much an entire air force early in the game. Good times :)
I just started playing the online version and the dice seem to be biased a lot to the AI. I get that sometimes things just suck and sometimes for a period of time but this seems above and beyond that. I tested it and restarted a game multiple times and could never take a certain territory with superior forces. Plus when the AI really needs a roll, it gets what it needs. Like it knows the importance of losing it for the AI. Often rolls 1's to take my last land unit, nearly every time. If I have multiple land units, the AI doesn't get the 1 it needs so the random nature would apply. My good rolls come when I don't need them as much.
I know what you mean, but I can say the same thing about in-person games I've played. Check out the final of the 2023 World Championships. The dice in that game absolutely hated me. Hand in there. Thanks for watching!
Thank you for posting this video I love to learn! That said, I have a question regarding a rule in 1942 first edition. I see in the rule book fighters taking off from carriers can get to an adjacent sea zone in one move. However, fighters taking off from a land zone must count the adjacent sea zone as one move. My question is... Can a fighter take off from a carrier that's let's say, is in the French-Indo-China-Burma sea zone, skip that sea zone and fly to the French-Indo-China-Burma in one move? Thank you so much for your help and your page!
Thanks for watching! If a fighter is on a carrier that is adjacent to a land territory, the fighter only uses one move to get from that sea zone to the land territory. So, the answer to your question is 'yes.' I hope this helps! Have fun!
I only play Standard. Biased is pointless, while low luck is just absurd - makes the game completely predictable. I love when I come back to a game where I've left a solid but undersrength force in the open and the opponent failed miserably to deatroy it. However what I've noticed is Standard does not seem to be completely random. Very often when several units are engaged you can observe that if you roll low results the enemy will likely roll low as well and vice versa. For example I hit an area with 6 units and score 4 hits, I am most certain that the lone defender score a hit as well. And when I score nothing it happens 3 or 4 turns a defendeling Fighter to roll only 6s. It's very weird. At first I thought it was a coincidence but this does occur quite often.
I just finished a game with a friend where the randomness played a big part in it. I was the Allies. And Russia was about to fall by a two pronged attack by Japan and Germany, Moscow had 10 Infantry I knew Moscow was going to fall for that reason I had to go after Tokyo when the odds were slightly stacked against me, that turn started with Germany launching its 7 Fighters 1 bomber into Moscow, his lan was to weaken the Infantry in Moscow with Germany and then Japan take Moscow however the dice were not in his favor 7 of those 10 infantry hit killing 6 planes he chose to withdraw after only killing four Infantry. Japan's Attack Force was only two Infantry 1 artillery allowing Moscow to stay in the game one more turn. I still attempted to invade Tokyo and I succeeded he decided to concede after that because it was going to turn into a long drawn-out game
So correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t the standardized dice unrealistically buff the more expensive units that hit on 3’s and 4’s? If the dice really end up distributed in a bell curve like that, then I think it actually fundamentally changes the very nature of the game. Infantry and submarines are no longer so strong, and now tanks, bombers, fighters, and battleships are straight-up busted, no?
That is a really interesting point! It is something I have been talking to some advanced and expert players about recently. Now that we have a better understanding of "Stabilized" or "Biased" dice, I notice that I have been playing differently. Few marching stacks of infantry and more tanks and fighters. I have been thinking about how this dice configuration might help or hurt different powers or potential strategies. Feels like it might be worth exploring. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts. I hope you get a chance to subscribe to the channel for more!
In an amphibious attack any defenders that are eliminated by naval bombardment should not be able to shoot back! The landing happens after the bombardment and the defender has already been eliminated. Pass this on for me!, fix it.
That was the rule in the original game from 1984. I agree that it makes more logical sense, but it makes it possible to make land Invasions with no risk to the attacking land units. I think that might be why it was changed. But, I will pass it on the next time I talk with Larry Harris. ;) Thanks for watching!
Anniversary board, I have an Italian tank sitting on Eastern Ukraine, Russian turn brings in 2 Inf, 2 Artillery and a bomber I think. He retreated his bomber I'll finish there. 🤣🤣🤣
@@BoardGameNation I just got Axis & Allies 1942 Online today. I have been playing catch up on all the new things in that version of A&A. I played the original in the 90s, then I played a PC version in 90s, both A&As and the Axis & Allies: Iron Blitz. Then I played Revised in TripleA and that was the last version I played. I was not a fan of TripleA, I either wanted to play board game or a better PC version. I was watching A&A Online for a while, finally took the plunge. I am really liking 1942 2nd edition. I am loving the new pieces, destroyers, cruisers and artillery. Thanks for the videos, it is really bringing back the love of the game again.
I think *biased* dice are a really bad idea for favoring the *middle* range as that is NOT what wins battles -- To either attack or defend you are trying to get *under* a certain number depending on the unit type. Some unit-types only succeed in one extreme end, the low end. The dice will end up being biased AGAINST infantry and artillery units (effective on 1s and 2s) while being biased IN FAVOR of heavier units like planes and tanks (effective in the middle range at 3s and 4s as well as less-likely 1s and 2s). This is a strategy that automaticlaly FAVORS Axis powers (as belligerents) who start off with more heavy attack power already on the board! For typically defensive USSR, the strategy of buying mostly infantry and artillery is right out!
All interesting points! I wonder how you think using biased dice might change the efficacy of different popular strategies for each side. I have been thinking about building a video around the idea of which strategies work best when using different settings. 🤔 Thanks for watching!
@@BoardGameNation We should run some trial games to find out :-) with biased dice as USSR I'd skip the typical 1st turn 4 infantry + 3 artillery (whose entire effective range is outside center bell curve) and get a fighter-plane in the mix.
I was so pissed at my bombers and battleships missing that I actually created an excel spreadsheet to track it. Between attacks and shore bombardments, I collected over 400 samples for each. Much to my dismay, they both hit approximately 67% of the time.😡 I moved on to my next irritation... The German bomber *DEFENDING* in Ukraine on round one. I swear that thing is a stealth bomber in disguise.....the number of times that damn thing rolls a ONE 👀
@@BoardGameNation There's one other "anomaly" that I'm going to start tracking to put my fears to rest. The round one attack in W. Russia. There's four Russian & four German units that attack & defend at a TWO. For some reason, I "feel" like the defenders always hit more. Again, it's a feeling, so I'm I want to see the numbers.
To me, bombing raids are always a risky venture. Sure, you can cost your enemy IPC's by bombing factories, but they have a 1 out of 6 chance of shooting down your bomber, and the way I see it, even one downed bomber is almost always more expensive for you than the IPC's you could potentially cost your opponent! To really be effective to any degree (in my opinion), Bombers need to be utilized en masse, as in at least 3 Bombers are needed to cause any sort of significant damage. One or two bombers on a raid are really only going to annoy your opponent more than set them back, most of the time. However from around mid-game onward, once the USA can land 3,4,5+ bombers in UK (who could have say, even 3+ bombers themselves) and rotate their bombing raids on their respective turns, this can rapidly start to become a BIG problem for Germany - very much like what happened in the real war! I almost always play as the Axis powers, but when I do play as the allies and am either UK or US, I insist on this type of strategy with my partners. Besides maybe Germany bombing Russia if they can (early game they have the resources and intiative to do it, but they got to move because as turns go on, Germany begins to lose this opportunity when the US/UK start massing in England, threatening southern Europe and USSR is able to dig in) , this is really the only theater and circumstances where strategic bombing can be a game-changer.
Thanks for watching! I agree. Bombing raids have one of two uses. Either it is a wholesale Allied strategy or it can be used to shorten a game with an opponent that is turtuling up a Capitol city.
Yeah I don't believe this. Two separate games I did three bombing raids with just one bomber each raid and EVER SINGLE TIME (that's SIX TOTAL without a single one getting through) my bombers were shot down. Totally not a coincidence. I started just sending 7-8 bombers (game was already over) at a factory just to test things and they always shot 1 down. Now, the chances of rolling a "1" on 7-8 dice is pretty dang high but literally EVERY TIME I did a bombing raid... EVERY SINGLE TIME I lost at least 1 bomber. Something is bugged about it. To the point I don't even do bombing raids because I don't want to play without my bombers.
I get it. I'll tell you that I typically only use bombing raids when a country (usually Berlin or Moscow) has turtled up. Honestly, I think it was why the option was introduced into the game. It speeds up a war of attrition once one side has the edge. I know not everyone agrees with this, but the continual risk of the 12 IPC bombers in exchange for an average of 3.5 IPCs only seems worth it once I have overwhelming economic force. Thanks for sharing!
@@BoardGameNation Yeah, that's typically the only time I do it as well. Usually on island nations like Britain or Japan. They can stack an absurd amount of dudes on those islands that you can't whittle down very easily. On the other hand sometimes I'll bombing raid if I have overwhelming odds on all my battles and I don't "need" the bomber that turn.
When I play the Allies, my starting UK and US bombers _never_ have survived past the first two bombing runs. They are either shot in round 1 or round 2; never fails. Meanwhile, Germany hits me for 5 or 6. When I play as the Axis, my German bombers do at least 12 IPCs before getting destroyed.
1 at a time, or in penny packets? With BBR tech interceptors are more deadly than ever. Global strikes a good balance with SBR interception, at 1 without modding. Russia figher on R1?
I had once a trouble with one german sub in Atlantic. It just refused to die😅. It took me like three rounds to get rid of it. I just wonder what kind of super sub technology Germany was using🤣🤣
what would be great is to show the statistical luck or non luck you have during a game. people could feel better about their game :P. Otherwise a file download of the game would be nice..
Interesting. Are you looking for an in-game statistical analysis of the projected outcome versus actual? That is an interesting idea. Thanks for sharing!
Every unit rolls one die to attack or defense, except for the AA guns. Each fire once for each attacking air unit up to a max of three per AA gun. Industrial Complexes will roll one die for each bomber attacking it regardless of the number. I hope this answers your question. Thanks for watching!
When the CEO goes complaining to the programmers about the dice there might be a problem. I think it would do the game a world of good if instead of them trying to say the dice work right they would show us the statistical results they are getting. Know I have played this game since the 80's so I know things can happen with real dice. But I know if my dice did some of the things I have seen with this game. I would be replacing the dice. Likely killing dice to teach the other dice how to roll. That said I do like the ideal of wifi dice that would be fun
I would like that, too. However, I am not sure it is the cards with Beamdog. They got bought and haven't really done anything with A&A since. Hopefully, they (or someone) will find the will to make it happen. Thanks for watching!
We captured the final of the Axis and Allies Global tournament at Gen Con this year and we will be making videos breaking that game down. Thanks for watching!
I can predict when 1 and 6 will apear based on the previous role.......Sorry total BS.....I tracked 45 games, and I am locked at 23% first round and its ruining the game play......Plus I believe you have made certain zones extremely hard to help take advantage away from the axis......right now the game is a MESS
Same here, its been set up to be a infantry rush game. Infantry have a better shot at winning than fighters. Also we noticed off shore bombardments are fixed as well. You are lucky to get HIT at 30% of the time with battle ships. Bombing runs are not advised. Sea battles are all or nothing, one person rolls 80% hits the other 10% in the first two rounds. Its a joke. And yes I got an A in stats and finite mathematics. This game needs attention or its set up to cheat.
Thank you for watching this piece of our full interview with Trent Oster, CEO of Beamdog! What questions do you have for Trent Oster and the Beamdog team?
Beamdog has a Reddit AMA coming up.
Ask us anything!
Head to reddit's r/Boardgames on Friday, August 20, 2021 from 10am-12pm PDT for your chance to chat live with us about Axis & Allies 1942 Online!
Event: AMA with Axis & Allies 1942 Online
Date: Friday, August 20, 2021
Time: 10am-12pm PDT
Link: www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/
Personally I'm going to ask them when they plan to clearly and openly acknowledge the differences between 1942 Online and 1942 Second Edition in their product description that customers buy the game based off of.
i have read a lot about RNG and the only way to truely have a random number is to add chaos to the formulae : natural randomness will never have a fixed condition to create a seed. There will be similar context, never identical. I experimented with code that would read raw data from a temperature sensor and built a seed from it. It was a fun experiment! :D
Wow! That does sound like a cool experiment. I read an article about once that talked about a RNG that pulls a number from a some kind of object in space that was being monitored by NASA that was emitting radio waves at random frequencies. It would use those random frequencies to generate a number at the instant it was requested based on what that thing in space was doing. No idea how it worked, but it was an interesting article.
Thanks for watching!
@Aardvark Pepper - I am looking forward to that AMA from Beamdog. Thanks for the reminder to add it to my calendar.
As for your question, I have seen you mention this topic before. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the Beamdog program and the OOB rules for 1942.2 is that carriers and transports can't take friendly non-native units as cargo. (Did I miss something else?) I understand how that minor change can affect game play and possible strategies, but I am not sure it is that minor change has that big of an impact. If this rule were to made to match the OOB rules for 1942.2, I think we would see a lot more Allied victories as that rule allows for the Americans to more quickly get involved in Europe.
Why do you think this is such significant issue?
(Edit - Re-read my reply, realized it came off badly. I had meant it to address some players that find issue with Beamdog's PRNG implementation (did not mean to address or imply Board Game Nation had any unfair expectations of developers), it came off that way and I apologize. I'm saying I think concerns over PRNG implementation are reasonable, but to think about what Beamdog's responsibilities really are, whether it's really reasonable to expect them to put the money and time in to investigating the matter. It was said by some that I care about the PRNG issue, but for me product description is a 10, rules as written a 9, chat and social functions an 8, PRNG is way down on the scale for me. As to Beamdog's handling of concerns over PRNG, that is another matter.)
I'll write here what I've written elsewhere many times. First, I don't think it's fair to put the expectation on the developers that they correctly evaluate PRNG outcomes. There is literature about PRNG evaluation, but Axis and Allies outcomes are correctly evaluated as *groups* of dice, rather than individual dice, which, as far as I've seen in the literature has not been done (as most PRNG applications do not require evaluation as *groups* of dice like Axis and Allies types games do). If mathematicians haven't done it, then how can we fairly expect Beamdog to handle that? They're a video game company. That's not to be dismissive, I am saying writing papers about proper PRNG evaluation when it comes to games similar to Axis and Allies is not reasonably in Beamdog's purview.
If the developers don't look into the mathematics deeply, at least Beamdog should repeatedly make the point they haven't dug into the matter? Again, I don't think so. Reasonably, Beamdog could just say they use a PRNG, that the issues users experience are issues inherent to PRNGs, and mostly leave it at that.
But this is not what has been done. The repeated claims are it is "proved" there is no issue, that all perceived issues are simply a matter of perception. But it has not been proved. It can never be proved, because that is simply not how statistical analysis works. It can only be said that given a particular dataset, gathered under particular conditions, that no issues were found using a particular methodology, looking for particular flaws that may or may not be the flaws that should be looked for.
But Beamdog has actually done that? I don't believe they have (NOT that I take issue with that), and you can look to this video (and elsewhere, should you have a mind). But in this video, Trent says the 1s are "exactly" the same as the 2s and so forth . . . exactly? If you're getting exactly the same numbers, that's actually suspicious. Flip a coin twenty times, the probability of exactly ten heads and ten tails is less than 18%.
But Trent was just speaking colloquially? But look at the methodology described. They do not speak of looking at dice considered as sub-groups. They speak of looking at dice as an undifferentiated mass. This is not how Axis and Allies outcomes work.
Take a simplified example. Suppose we play a game with only tanks. Whenever my tanks attack, I roll 1, 2, or 3. Whenever your tanks defend, they roll 4, 5, or 6. When you look at the dice as an undifferentiated mass, there is no issue. It is only when you group the tanks into my tanks and your tanks that the issue becomes obvious.
The response often given is "the behavior is not programmed in". But the issue is not whether the behavior is programmed to happen or not. The issue is whether there is problematic behavior or not. Emergent behavior happens. No engineer planned for the Tacoma Narrows bridge to collapse during planning, yet it did. Ask anyone with programming experience what a bug is, if they can just write one program that works correctly on all hardware and software setups.
All this, I expect most will dismiss out of hand. But as far as I've ever seen statements or interviews about PRNG evaluation out of Beamdog, I've never seen anything resembling what I thought proper methodology. You don't see specific hypotheses tested, you don't see specific datasets, you never see any mention of any specific conditions under which data was purportedly collected. I don't say that would be easy, I don't even say Beamdog is responsible for doing all that. I am saying pronouncements that everything is all right are rather premature. It really isn't known whether there is an issue or not, and I do not mean in some vague "all viewpoints are equal so who really knows", I mean *it is not known*, proper proofs have not been presented one way or another.
Yes! I think a part of it is people also remember the times their bombers die but not the times the bombers survive and even get crazy results (like 4-6 damage)
Very true! Everyone remembers the bad beats, but few remember the big wins.
Thanks for watching!
The few times my bombers survived I always got 1-2 on the dice. 1-ONE time I got a 4 , so well...
I know what you mean. I think bombing raids have a very specific purpose. I typically only use them near the end of a game to speed up the demise of a turtled capital and only after I have a significant economic advantage.
Thanks for watching!
At least once, my British Pacific fleet wiped out the very strong Japanese fleet at Dutch East Indies without a single casualty on turn one. That was some killer dice.
That is a monster roll! That kind of opening can have a huge difference to a game.
Thanks for watching!
I never do that anymore, it works maybe like 1 in 10 times lol
I have been playing since the game came out in the 80's but am new to the online and loving it. Yes, my bombers get shot down at what seems a 90% clip and my fighters only hit at about a 10% clip. I think that is how most players feel at least lmao - Thanks guys!
Thanks for watching! Glad you enjoyed the video!
totally MY FIGHTERS ARE WORTHLESS, ITS A GAME OF INFANTRY AND IT SO LAME
So this is something no one is talking about. The names of the different types of rolling and how they are COMPLETELY counter intuitive. 'Biased dice' makes me think it's bias against me. 'Low luck' makes me think the computer will purposefully display more misses. How about standard = random dice, bias = realistic feel dice, low luck = formula driven dice. Who's with me! Great vid BTW.
That is an interesting thought. I am wondering if people play differently with the different dice configurations. Fewer ones and sixes? Does that help or hurt different strategies?
Thanks for watching!
Wait, what's the difference between "random dice" and "realistic feel dice"?
@@Statalyzer shown in video. 1 and 6 are suppressed more
I am not sure. I don't know the term "realistic feel dice". Is that from another game?
Random dice, called Standard in AAO, is supposed to have an equal chance of rolling a 1 as there is to roll a 6. I hope this helps.
Thanks for watching!
Standard dice are standard dice. Grocery stores don't sell "nonpoisonous" tomatoes because they're all supposed to be nonpoisonous, right? Same for dice, they are supposed to be random, right? If bias dice work as described in this video those are not "realistic" dice. They are weighted to 3 and 4, and what does that mean? Less AA hits, more tank and fighter hits, less infantry and artillery hits. which, well, biased dice, there you go. Not biased as in personal bias, but bias as in, well, biased. As to Low Luck, that's a naming convention for the same system already used for years by some players in the community.
A claim made by some is Low Luck is "more strategic". But it simply reduces the range of outcomes from a divergent multi-peak model to a near single-peak model. Though Low Luck players don't need nearly the ability to plan for openings created by dice outcomes / plan for contingencies in case of dice failure, Low Luck players do need to correctly predict the sharply limited outcomes, or an opponent can punish their inaccuracies. Different, but I would not say superior.
Great interview! Love the detail!
Thanks for watching!
Hope they bring back weapons developments & the ability to choose to kamikaze planes.
Anything is possible! Here is what Beamdog's CEO had to say about it.
czcams.com/video/3ll6iNr0YRA/video.html
Thanks for watching!
Very informative!! Our favourite subject.. the dice!!
Awesome! Glad you liked it.
Thanks for watching!
No the randomness is fine but I still think the AA Strategic Bombing dice are bugged. I’ll use bombers and fighters to attack an AA territory and they take losses liked you’d expect but 95% of my bombers get shot down on the first roll when bombing factories.
Maybe at some point we will see some more detailed analysis on the topic.
Thanks for watching!
I agree.
Agreed, the generator sucks when it comes to strategic bombing.
What is your feeling about BBs hitting in a shore bombardment. Mine miss overaverage
I have heard that complaint as well. I certainly don't count on them.
Thanks for watching!
The Serge thing is hilarious though! We do that when playing the actual board game. One lone infantry like wiping out 5 guys is pretty hilarious. That being said it doesn't happen every single battle like bombing raids.
I think we all have some mythical stories staeted by some crazy dice outcomes.
Thanks for watching!
Wonder if they ever did an analysis on the frequency/infrequency of streaks (e.g., all 1s). It's fine to say the statistical likelihood of each die value is the same across a large number of rolls, but that doesn't mean statistically improbable streaks don't happen.
Hahaha, I used to play the Board Game, but also the old Computer version (1998). It was hilarious how many people online would get angry at strange results, but... I agree with the Dev here, they ABSOLUTELY forget all the crazy rolls that happened during the board game itself. I never really saw anything more outrageous than some of the crazy things that happened on the board. I once witnessed 5 out of 5 transports hit on a 1 in the board game, destroying pretty much an entire air force early in the game. Good times :)
I just started playing the online version and the dice seem to be biased a lot to the AI. I get that sometimes things just suck and sometimes for a period of time but this seems above and beyond that.
I tested it and restarted a game multiple times and could never take a certain territory with superior forces. Plus when the AI really needs a roll, it gets what it needs. Like it knows the importance of losing it for the AI. Often rolls 1's to take my last land unit, nearly every time. If I have multiple land units, the AI doesn't get the 1 it needs so the random nature would apply. My good rolls come when I don't need them as much.
I know what you mean, but I can say the same thing about in-person games I've played. Check out the final of the 2023 World Championships. The dice in that game absolutely hated me.
Hand in there. Thanks for watching!
Cool video!
Thanks for watching!
Thank you for posting this video I love to learn! That said, I have a question regarding a rule in 1942 first edition. I see in the rule book fighters taking off from carriers can get to an adjacent sea zone in one move. However, fighters taking off from a land zone must count the adjacent sea zone as one move. My question is... Can a fighter take off from a carrier that's let's say, is in the French-Indo-China-Burma sea zone, skip that sea zone and fly to the French-Indo-China-Burma in one move? Thank you so much for your help and your page!
Thanks for watching! If a fighter is on a carrier that is adjacent to a land territory, the fighter only uses one move to get from that sea zone to the land territory.
So, the answer to your question is 'yes.' I hope this helps! Have fun!
I only play Standard. Biased is pointless, while low luck is just absurd - makes the game completely predictable. I love when I come back to a game where I've left a solid but undersrength force in the open and the opponent failed miserably to deatroy it.
However what I've noticed is Standard does not seem to be completely random. Very often when several units are engaged you can observe that if you roll low results the enemy will likely roll low as well and vice versa. For example I hit an area with 6 units and score 4 hits, I am most certain that the lone defender score a hit as well. And when I score nothing it happens 3 or 4 turns a defendeling Fighter to roll only 6s. It's very weird. At first I thought it was a coincidence but this does occur quite often.
I'll keep an eye out for that. Thanks for watching!
I've not found a computer dice that feels right, always seems pre programmed for certain battles and or difficulty levels
I just finished a game with a friend where the randomness played a big part in it. I was the Allies. And Russia was about to fall by a two pronged attack by Japan and Germany, Moscow had 10 Infantry I knew Moscow
was going to fall for that reason I had to go after Tokyo when the odds were slightly stacked against me, that turn started with Germany launching its 7 Fighters 1 bomber into Moscow, his lan was to weaken the Infantry in Moscow with Germany and then Japan take Moscow however the dice were not in his favor 7 of those 10 infantry hit killing 6 planes he chose to withdraw after only killing four Infantry. Japan's Attack Force was only two Infantry 1 artillery allowing Moscow to stay in the game one more turn. I still attempted to invade Tokyo and I succeeded he decided to concede after that because it was going to turn into a long drawn-out game
Wow! Sounds like a wild game. Thanks for sharing and for watching!
So correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t the standardized dice unrealistically buff the more expensive units that hit on 3’s and 4’s? If the dice really end up distributed in a bell curve like that, then I think it actually fundamentally changes the very nature of the game. Infantry and submarines are no longer so strong, and now tanks, bombers, fighters, and battleships are straight-up busted, no?
That is a really interesting point! It is something I have been talking to some advanced and expert players about recently. Now that we have a better understanding of "Stabilized" or "Biased" dice, I notice that I have been playing differently. Few marching stacks of infantry and more tanks and fighters. I have been thinking about how this dice configuration might help or hurt different powers or potential strategies. Feels like it might be worth exploring.
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts. I hope you get a chance to subscribe to the channel for more!
The traditional naval game of 'uckers' deals with bad dice using a move called 'up board!'
Thanks for watching!
In an amphibious attack any defenders that are eliminated by naval bombardment should not be able to shoot back! The landing happens after the bombardment and the defender has already been eliminated. Pass this on for me!, fix it.
That was the rule in the original game from 1984. I agree that it makes more logical sense, but it makes it possible to make land Invasions with no risk to the attacking land units. I think that might be why it was changed.
But, I will pass it on the next time I talk with Larry Harris. ;)
Thanks for watching!
Anniversary board, I have an Italian tank sitting on Eastern Ukraine, Russian turn brings in 2 Inf, 2 Artillery and a bomber I think.
He retreated his bomber I'll finish there.
🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for watching!
Could you do a video comparison of Axis & Allies 1942 Online Standard Setup vs Larry Harris Gencon v3.0 Setup
That is an excellent idea! I will definitely add that to the list.
Thank you!
@@BoardGameNation I just got Axis & Allies 1942 Online today. I have been playing catch up on all the new things in that version of A&A. I played the original in the 90s, then I played a PC version in 90s, both A&As and the Axis & Allies: Iron Blitz. Then I played Revised in TripleA and that was the last version I played. I was not a fan of TripleA, I either wanted to play board game or a better PC version. I was watching A&A Online for a while, finally took the plunge. I am really liking 1942 2nd edition. I am loving the new pieces, destroyers, cruisers and artillery. Thanks for the videos, it is really bringing back the love of the game again.
Glad to hear it! Thanks for watching!
I think *biased* dice are a really bad idea for favoring the *middle* range as that is NOT what wins battles -- To either attack or defend you are trying to get *under* a certain number depending on the unit type. Some unit-types only succeed in one extreme end, the low end. The dice will end up being biased AGAINST infantry and artillery units (effective on 1s and 2s) while being biased IN FAVOR of heavier units like planes and tanks (effective in the middle range at 3s and 4s as well as less-likely 1s and 2s). This is a strategy that automaticlaly FAVORS Axis powers (as belligerents) who start off with more heavy attack power already on the board! For typically defensive USSR, the strategy of buying mostly infantry and artillery is right out!
All interesting points! I wonder how you think using biased dice might change the efficacy of different popular strategies for each side. I have been thinking about building a video around the idea of which strategies work best when using different settings. 🤔
Thanks for watching!
@@BoardGameNation We should run some trial games to find out :-) with biased dice as USSR I'd skip the typical 1st turn 4 infantry + 3 artillery (whose entire effective range is outside center bell curve) and get a fighter-plane in the mix.
Interesting idea. I'll give that some thought!
I was so pissed at my bombers and battleships missing that I actually created an excel spreadsheet to track it. Between attacks and shore bombardments, I collected over 400 samples for each.
Much to my dismay, they both hit approximately 67% of the time.😡
I moved on to my next irritation... The German bomber *DEFENDING* in Ukraine on round one. I swear that thing is a stealth bomber in disguise.....the number of times that damn thing rolls a ONE 👀
Thanks for watching!
Have you posted your findings in any of the online groups?
@@BoardGameNation I did respond to a post on A&A online forum. Another person was complaining about bombers and battleships.
I'm guessing that for some, no amount of evidence would ever make a difference.
Still, I appreciate the effort!
@@BoardGameNation There's one other "anomaly" that I'm going to start tracking to put my fears to rest.
The round one attack in W. Russia. There's four Russian & four German units that attack & defend at a TWO.
For some reason, I "feel" like the defenders always hit more. Again, it's a feeling, so I'm I want to see the numbers.
Let us know what you find out!
To me, bombing raids are always a risky venture. Sure, you can cost your enemy IPC's by bombing factories, but they have a 1 out of 6 chance of shooting down your bomber, and the way I see it, even one downed bomber is almost always more expensive for you than the IPC's you could potentially cost your opponent!
To really be effective to any degree (in my opinion), Bombers need to be utilized en masse, as in at least 3 Bombers are needed to cause any sort of significant damage. One or two bombers on a raid are really only going to annoy your opponent more than set them back, most of the time.
However from around mid-game onward, once the USA can land 3,4,5+ bombers in UK (who could have say, even 3+ bombers themselves) and rotate their bombing raids on their respective turns, this can rapidly start to become a BIG problem for Germany - very much like what happened in the real war!
I almost always play as the Axis powers, but when I do play as the allies and am either UK or US, I insist on this type of strategy with my partners. Besides maybe Germany bombing Russia if they can (early game they have the resources and intiative to do it, but they got to move because as turns go on, Germany begins to lose this opportunity when the US/UK start massing in England, threatening southern Europe and USSR is able to dig in) , this is really the only theater and circumstances where strategic bombing can be a game-changer.
Thanks for watching!
I agree. Bombing raids have one of two uses. Either it is a wholesale Allied strategy or it can be used to shorten a game with an opponent that is turtuling up a Capitol city.
Yeah I don't believe this.
Two separate games I did three bombing raids with just one bomber each raid and EVER SINGLE TIME (that's SIX TOTAL without a single one getting through) my bombers were shot down. Totally not a coincidence. I started just sending 7-8 bombers (game was already over) at a factory just to test things and they always shot 1 down. Now, the chances of rolling a "1" on 7-8 dice is pretty dang high but literally EVERY TIME I did a bombing raid... EVERY SINGLE TIME I lost at least 1 bomber.
Something is bugged about it. To the point I don't even do bombing raids because I don't want to play without my bombers.
I get it. I'll tell you that I typically only use bombing raids when a country (usually Berlin or Moscow) has turtled up. Honestly, I think it was why the option was introduced into the game. It speeds up a war of attrition once one side has the edge.
I know not everyone agrees with this, but the continual risk of the 12 IPC bombers in exchange for an average of 3.5 IPCs only seems worth it once I have overwhelming economic force.
Thanks for sharing!
@@BoardGameNation Yeah, that's typically the only time I do it as well. Usually on island nations like Britain or Japan. They can stack an absurd amount of dudes on those islands that you can't whittle down very easily. On the other hand sometimes I'll bombing raid if I have overwhelming odds on all my battles and I don't "need" the bomber that turn.
I guess the varying styles is what makes the game fun!
When I play the Allies, my starting UK and US bombers _never_ have survived past the first two bombing runs. They are either shot in round 1 or round 2; never fails. Meanwhile, Germany hits me for 5 or 6. When I play as the Axis, my German bombers do at least 12 IPCs before getting destroyed.
1 at a time, or in penny packets? With BBR tech interceptors are more deadly than ever.
Global strikes a good balance with SBR interception, at 1 without modding. Russia figher on R1?
Thanks for watching! Check out new video coming this week on Russian openings!
I had once a trouble with one german sub in Atlantic. It just refused to die😅. It took me like three rounds to get rid of it. I just wonder what kind of super sub technology Germany was using🤣🤣
Haha! I know exactly what you mean. I think we all have a story or two like that.
Thanks for watching!
what would be great is to show the statistical luck or non luck you have during a game. people could feel better about their game :P. Otherwise a file download of the game would be nice..
Interesting. Are you looking for an in-game statistical analysis of the projected outcome versus actual? That is an interesting idea.
Thanks for sharing!
Each unit rolls one dice?
Every unit rolls one die to attack or defense, except for the AA guns. Each fire once for each attacking air unit up to a max of three per AA gun. Industrial Complexes will roll one die for each bomber attacking it regardless of the number.
I hope this answers your question. Thanks for watching!
When the CEO goes complaining to the programmers about the dice there might be a problem. I think it would do the game a world of good if instead of them trying to say the dice work right they would show us the statistical results they are getting. Know I have played this game since the 80's so I know things can happen with real dice. But I know if my dice did some of the things I have seen with this game. I would be replacing the dice. Likely killing dice to teach the other dice how to roll. That said I do like the ideal of wifi dice that would be fun
I hear you. I would love some kind of Wifi/Bluetooth dice option.
Thanks for watching!
@@BoardGameNation Yea i really enjoy your channel.
Thanks! We are working on a few new videos now that we are really excited about.
Give us more axis and allies online games
I would like that, too. However, I am not sure it is the cards with Beamdog. They got bought and haven't really done anything with A&A since.
Hopefully, they (or someone) will find the will to make it happen.
Thanks for watching!
@@BoardGameNation any chance that you'd cover the global war games in the future?
We captured the final of the Axis and Allies Global tournament at Gen Con this year and we will be making videos breaking that game down.
Thanks for watching!
@@BoardGameNation no sir I meant the game series Global War by historical board gaming
Ah. I'd have to look at it. I've not played it or even seen it played, but I hear good things. :)
No No! MY bombers are unluckier than yours.
Haha! That is entirely possible. :)
Thanks for watching!
Wi-fi dice. I love it.
I would love to try that! I saw a demo at GenCon, but I don't know if it ever made it into production.
Thanks for watching!
Classic confirmation bias is a noted flaw in you organics.
Best regards/Submit to your AI overlords
I fight for the users.
Thanks for watching@
I can predict when 1 and 6 will apear based on the previous role.......Sorry total BS.....I tracked 45 games, and I am locked at 23% first round and its ruining the game play......Plus I believe you have made certain zones extremely hard to help take advantage away from the axis......right now the game is a MESS
I haven't been able to detect the patterns you mentioned. Have you considered sending your analysis directly to Beamdog?
Thanks for watching!
@@BoardGameNation Many times no replies.
@@BoardGameNation Thank you for the reply - I love the game just wondering if we need to go to 8 sided dice? Add paratroopers?
One of the best things about this game is how many house rules options there are!
Have fun!
Same here, its been set up to be a infantry rush game. Infantry have a better shot at winning than fighters. Also we noticed off shore bombardments are fixed as well. You are lucky to get HIT at 30% of the time with battle ships. Bombing runs are not advised. Sea battles are all or nothing, one person rolls 80% hits the other 10% in the first two rounds. Its a joke. And yes I got an A in stats and finite mathematics. This game needs attention or its set up to cheat.