Minimum Conquer Advancement (Risk Rules)

[goldencrisp87]

Administrators far and wide have REJECTED this suggestion. This is not Risk. This is Conquer Club, we are not affiliated with Risk or Hasbro. You do not need to adhere to the rules of Risk. Want to play the real Risk way, go to Pogo or get a downloadable version.

I hope this hasn't already been posted about:

In the board game of Risk, you have to advance at least as many armies as you roll dice. However, here you can advance just the one even after rolling 3 dice. Is this on purpose?

[AlpineXazax]

yea, im pretty confused with this. It makes it to easy to conquer continents. It takes out the stratagy of connecting boarders, and overal makes the game more luck-based. And I once thought risk was a stratagy game featuring luck.

[Risk_06]

Yeah, this is on purpose, I believe. Mostly for simplicity, since it probably takes a lot of coding, or whatever progammers do, to program all that in....

I don't see how it takes out the strategy of connecting borders, though...

[Tr0y]

It wouldnt be hard to code, pretty sure it was done on purpose, or forgot about that rule.

[areon]

It makes it easier because if you attack certain ways you might box yourself in your own area; so not having to advance them after an attack does make it easier. There is also the rule where you state how many armies you're sending over to try and capture, so that you have to decide how many armies you can afford to invade with instead of sending a big mass and deciding to leave some behind.

[Marvaddin]

I think the current rule better than the board games one.

[moz976]

I think the current rule better than the board games one.

Yeah I agree this is actually how I have always played anyways. I must have missed that rule when I first started playing the real game.

[Derwiddle]

Same here, I'm perfectly fine with it.

[Romber]

For simplicity and easier games, I think the rule was forgotten. and I personally like it better.

[Darkfire001]

Mod Note: Administrators far and wide have REJECTED this suggestion. This is not Risk. This is Conquer Club, we are not affiliated with Risk or Hasbro. You do not need to adhere to the rules of Risk. Want to play the real Risk way, go to Pogo or get a downloadable version. Also- it is "territory". Not "teratory", "toratory", or "teritory". Don't drive me nuts doing my searches please!

Several threads have been and will continue to be piled here throughout the future without warning as to not bump a dead suggestion (rightfully so).

I'd like to see a minimum deployment equal to the attacking armies rules implemented IE if you attack with 3 armies you must deploy at least 3 (more if you want, but no less) armies into the conquered territory

[hernando cortez]

Well what if youre attacking western astralia then you just dead ended your armies . i dont like the idea.

[kingwaffles]

It is in the rules of the real board game... Doesn't neccesarily mean it has to be implemented, there are quite a few changes from the board game. Personally I think that it would give a bit more strategy to the game and make it more "pure"(true to the board game).

[Qwaz]

Administrators far and wide have REJECTED this suggestion. This is not Risk. This is Conquer Club, we are not affiliated with Risk or Hasbro. You do not need to adhere to the rules of Risk. Want to play the real Risk way, go to Pogo or get a downloadable version. Also- it is "territory". Not "teratory", "toratory", or "teritory". Don't drive me nuts doing my searches please!

When you conquer a toratory here you only need to advance 1 army, even when you have attacked with 3.

i think the rules of risk say you must advance as many armies as you attack with, why isnt this the case, or even an option at conquer club?

[AndyDufresne]

Because this isn't risk, it's world domination. And plus, lack hates too many options.


--Andy

[wcaclimbing]

Thats just how it has always been since the site started a year ago.
it hasnt changed and it never will.
There are other risk sites, maybe one of them has rules you like

[Backglass]

It hasnt changed and it never will. There are other risk sites, maybe one of them has rules you like

Yeah. Why make more options to enhance CC? Let's just keep it exactly the same until it dies out.

[Fircoal]

It hasnt changed and it never will. There are other risk sites, maybe one of them has rules you like

Yeah. Why make more options to enhance CC? Let's just keep it exactly the same until it dies out.

MAke more options is cool for the other good cases I've seen, but this one is not that good. IT's fine the way it is, and adding an opition for this instead of something more deserving, isn't that good of an idea.

[sully800]

I think one reason it doesn't exist is because you don't have an option of how many dice to use.

[sfhbballnut]

Thats just how it has always been since the site started a year ago.
it hasnt changed and it never will.
There are other risk sites, maybe one of them has rules you like

what gives you the authority to say it will never change?, its not likely but it could change

[Kantankerous]

<Subject>:
In the board game, an attacker has to advance troops based on the number of dice he roles. For instance, if you attack with all three dice, you have to advance at least 3 people into the conquered territory. I think this should be an option.

<Body>:
Specifics: Basically, attacker gets a choice, 1-3, of how many dice he rolls. Obviously restrictions already in place on # of dice would still hold true. Upon winning the battle, the attacker must move a minimum amount of troops equal to the amount of dice rolled in the last attack.

Why it is needed: It adds quite a bit more strategy to attack patterns.

Priority** (1-5): I dunno-2

[yeti_c]

<Subject>:
In the board game, an attacker has to advance troops based on the number of dice he roles. For instance, if you attack with all three dice, you have to advance at least 3 people into the conquered territory. I think this should be an option.

<Body>:
Specifics: Basically, attacker gets a choice, 1-3, of how many dice he rolls. Obviously restrictions already in place on # of dice would still hold true. Upon winning the battle, the attacker must move a minimum amount of troops equal to the amount of dice rolled in the last attack.

Why it is needed: It adds quite a bit more strategy to attack patterns.

Priority** (1-5): I dunno-2

I believe this has been canned before for the very reason that the Defender has the option of choosing his dice amounts too - but if you had to play your defensive turns as well as attacking turns the game would last forever!!!!!

C.

[spiesr]

this has been suggested numerous times so search next time...

[Craig25]

The idea means more planning and strategy is demanded of the attacker.

The defender would always defend with max dice as this gives him the most chance of defending the country. There is no benefit of only defending with 1 dice when you have the choice of 2.

[yeti_c]

The idea means more planning and strategy is demanded of the attacker.

The defender would always defend with max dice as this gives him the most chance of defending the country. There is no benefit of only defending with 1 dice when you have the choice of 2.

There is benefit though - If you only defend with 1 you only lose 1...

Someone do the maths here - I don't know!!

C.

[khazalid]

team games maybe, if your partner is eliminating you for your cards you want to give him the best chance. if its adjacent or chained forts it might also be useful to defend with only 1. i like cc way as it is to be honest