Conquer Club

I've browsed the forum (at least for 6 pages).
I've used the search feature (which gives me a lot of useless results).
to no avail.

While I'm new to the game, I'm not new to Risk, and i've been playing into different countries.

The Italian version (while I live in Italy, i'm not Italian) plays with 3 dices in defense.
I find this version much more strategic and much less "auto play" than the 3 vs 2 dice version of all other countries.
This gives a strategic advantage to the defense, of course, and could make for longer games.
But it gains in strategy twice-fold.

Before getting flamed (even though it's not the forum for it ) with posts like "that's not how we play, etc", I'd like to point out that i'm just asking if this "suggestion" could be somehow, sometime, put into effect as an OPTION in the game creation / finder area.
People could still play games with TWO dices in defense, but also with THREE, if they wished.

Like I said, it can be only a bonus for conquerclub, and not a small one at that. A brand new way of playing Risk, where strategy is even more important.

The Brazilian version also uses 3 dice... Risk is called "War" here.
I believe 2 dice are much better, once the defense already gets the tie advantage.

Marvaddin wrote:The Brazilian version also uses 3 dice... Risk is called "War" here.
I believe 2 dice are much better, once the defense already gets the tie advantage.

3 vs 2 means attack has the advantage. Ties are not worth an extra dice, at all.
3 vs 3, defense has the advantage, but not sooo much.
Attack always choose where to fight, and has reinforcements to put, allowing to fight on your terms.
Also, defense can lose a whole 3 armies each roll (attack too, of course), so you just need a lucky roll to get that 5 armies (not often players have 5 armies) defending to 2...

All in all, it represents much better global war (3 vs 2 means potentially blitzkriegs at every move), with few attacks / movements everyturn.
Question of personal preferences, of course.

If the defense got 3 dice, more of the games would turn into stalemates.

Right now, the attacker has the slight advantage so in close games it usually benefits you to play aggressively. If the defense had an advantage, not a lot of people would want to attack first, so the game would last a long time.

I like the current set-up best.

Of course, if the game is started with 3 armies on each territory, the 3 dice in defense option means a quicker "stalemate".
No games should start, with this option, with 3 armies already on each territory.
While I agree with AK_iceman that whatever the initial set-up, 3 dices in defense would cause longer games, i'm not asking for conquer club to be changed. Just to give it as an option.
Btw, if it was 4 dices vs 3, i wouldn't ask for the option. But 3 vs 2 is just too advantageous for the offense. The defense can't actually defend itself: it juts get butchered.

I disagree. A player always has the chance to put up a decent, and overwhelming defense, if they are willing to let up on offense a little. It forces the player to focus attention on defense (in my opinion, the most important aspect of Risk strategy) by avoiding blitzkrieg tactics, but rather slowly form safe points around easy to defend continents,taking one or two countries a turn, leaving enough armies free to defend the outside of your continents.

I like the idea

here's what I think, it's not a bad idea, or a good one. You have to understand that very few players wouldn't play more than one game like that. Like the double turn option they had a while back, lack had to take it off the site because almost no one was playing it. now you say it will just be an option, but it will thake up data room on the site, and it will eventualy be taken off anyway. and lack has better things to do anyway, so why bother?

_consiter it_

I personally wouldn't play it, but there might be people interested...

As a side note, in the brazilian Risk (aka War), the objective of the game is never to conquer the whole world, as that would take an eternity. Normally each player has his own, hidden objective (which he gets by taking a random objective card). The objectives could be to dominate a (or some) given continent(s), or a certain number of territories, etc.

Also, if I remember correctly, you get half the number of territories you control (instead of 1/3), and even like this the games take waaaaay longer than with the 3 vs. 2 rule.

And for those who think it would balance the game a bit, having the defense play with 3 dice gives them a HUGE advantage.... Like, we all know that conquering a territory through 2x2 is harder than playing 1x1... 3x3 would be just so much harder, and that's just about the best the attack could do if the defense has at least 3, which is not at all that much... Would easily stagnate the game.

In brazil most people I know don't like War, they say the game takes too long, and I've seen extremely few finished games (I've never finished one myself, the other players gave up before). When I've been invited to create an account here and my friend told me each player had 24h to play I said: "what?! each game would last years!"

Die is singular.
Dice is plural.
Dices has to do with gambling.

why? as it stands the chances of win/loss on both sides is very close to equil (with the attacker having an ever so slight lead chance, but not by much)

as someone who just lost a 16v9...nope defenders don't need to be stronger. You should be rewarded for taking more chances and being aggressive anyway.

As it is, the attacker does have a slight advantage with an extra die, but the defender has an advantage by winning all ties. Giving the defender an additional advantage with an extra die is neither fair nor necessary.

Natewolfman wrote:why? as it stands the chances of win/loss on both sides is very close to equil (with the attacker having an ever so slight lead chance, but not by much)

In real life war attacker must have 3 times larger army to win (military doctrine), with 2- dices to defender attacker can often win with smaller army...

prismsaber wrote:as someone who just lost a 16v9...nope defenders don't need to be stronger. You should be rewarded for taking more chances and being aggressive anyway.

You can play games without this option


I love to play defensive, and I used to the rules from board game

No one would ever attack in such a game, The defender gets the benefit of the doubt when intensity levels are tied, i.e. the defender always wins on a 6. Now imagine the defender rolling 3 intensity cubes instead of just 2, the defender now stands an equal chance of rolling a 6. This is not a good idea, such a game would punish the attacker who moves first. In a game where no one wants to lose troops, like a No Spoils game, no one would attack, ever! Such games would just stagnate, I would not want to play such a game.

Board game have that rule and people always find way to attack and win.
I do not like the game that can be quickly completed. Game without 30+ rounds isnt game

Then I have a suggestion for you:

No Spoils

Remove spoils from the game and the game will last longer. One game I played with No Spoils lasted for 102 rounds, if you want a slower game, play without spoils.