Conquer Club

Concise description:

A ability to regulate the number of units used to attack
Specifics/Details:

You have a menu to choose how many troops you are gonna attack with.
Ex. Attack _____ from______ with ____ troops
the numbers used can be 1, 2 and 3.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Due to the recent release of the Dice Stats, some people find that attacking with 1 or 2 units is more effective than using 3. Can be also used to regulate the possible casualties in a battle. How? by using only 1 dice, you can only lose 1 unit.

there is a work-around if you don't want to attack with all, use the 'attack' button not the 'auto-attack' button.

no, i mean in a battle, you choose to use 1 unit, 2 units or 3

you can currently avoid the attack all option by using the attack option. a minor change to this will not garner support from me

no, he means that if you're attacking, say, a 10 vs. 8, he means you can choose whether to attack with 3 guys, 2 guys, or 1 guy each time you attack the defending stack.

IMO, this feature is unecesary. it may be preferable to some players, but I do not favor it all that much.

it would be idiotic to attack with 1 vs 2 if you can attack with 3-2... however, if you truly can predict parterns, i too might be interrested!

Attacking with 1 dice against 2 can give strategic advantage over attacking with more dice.
If you want to weaken a territory with stack A so that stack B may move through it, right now you have to stop when the territory is at 2 armies, or you risk blocking stack B. I remember moving stack A away but leave 2 behind to have a chance to reduce the territory, increasing my odds to make a kill.
If this would get implemented, there would be an easy way to get it down to 1 without the risk of taking it.

karelpietertje wrote:Attacking with 1 dice against 2 can give strategic advantage over attacking with more dice.
If you want to weaken a territory with stack A so that stack B may move through it, right now you have to stop when the territory is at 2 armies, or you risk blocking stack B. I remember moving stack A away but leave 2 behind to have a chance to reduce the territory, increasing my odds to make a kill.
If this would get implemented, there would be an easy way to get it down to 1 without the risk of taking it.

yes, but overall it would not be a good idea. I mean obvioulsy sometimes the defender would like to see the dicerolls before deciding how many troops he is going to defend with..

still, i stand corrected. there are some instances where i dont want 3-2 to succceed, but would not mind wasting a few troops to try to get a 2 stack to 1...

you know what, seeing the dice stats, it makes me want to implement this suggestion because then I can use one of the rolls that have a more favorable outcome for me. So I change my mind. This is a good suggestion.

shieldgenerator7 wrote:you know what, seeing the dice stats, it makes me want to implement this suggestion because then I can use one of the rolls that have a more favorable outcome for me. So I change my mind. This is a good suggestion.

And I want to see this suggestion implemented so that people that don't understand statistics will make use of the option, allowing me to win more battles!

Seriously. If the defender has 2+ armies in a territory and you attack with one die, you will lose exactly one army 74.5% of the time and kill one army 25.5% of the time. You can call this a fractional kill of 0.255 and a loss of 0.745per roll, so you have an expected net loss of 0.49 armies every time you do this. If you attack with 2, you kill 2 armies 22.8% of the time, kill 1 and lose 1 44.8% of the time, and lose 2 32.4% of the time. This works out to a fractional kill of 0.904 and a loss of 1.096 per turn, or an expected net loss of 0.192 armies per attack roll. If you attack with 3 armies, you kill 2 37.2% of the time, kill 1 and lose 1 29.3% of the time, and lose 2 33.6% of the time. This gives a fractional expected kill of 1.037 and a loss of 0.965 per turn for a net kill rate of 0.072 armies per turn.

To simplify, if you roll 1 die against a defender with 2 die 100 times, you can expect to lose 49 more armies than you kill. If you roll 2 dice against a defender with 2 dice 100 times, you can expect to lose 19 more armies than you kill. If you roll the full 3 dice every time and go 100 battles against defenders with 2 dice, you can expect to kill 7 more armies than you lose.

For most people, the "luck" percentage for the 1 and 2 attacking dice is based on a very small sample size and is not generally a good indicator. Not to mention that mathematically, having good luck in the last few battles has exactly zero predictive power on how well your next roll is going to turn out.

Note: you CAN re-vote

I like the idea. It's just like in the boardgame, where you can roll with less dice if you wish to. And it can have strategic value, as someone has already mentioned.

Voted yes.

anymore opinions?

i like it