Conquer Club

I read somewhere that a version of RISK in Italy allows you to roll 3 defense dice. I was wondering if this was a new option worth adding to ConquerClub...

hmm yeah could be implemented. Also love the avatar

already suggested many times, many times rejected

why would you want that to be implemented?
the games will take a lot longer as you have a major disatvantage for attacking.. which will also make people having bonusses at the start or almost having a bonus having an ever greater advantage than they already would have.

bad, bad idea....

No way. Defensive dice are already worth way more than attacking dice. Defense wins ties and don't stop at 1, so 14 on defense is worth way more than using those fourteen on offense. The defense trades in a dice for these advantages. No way should a third one be added.

insomniacdude wrote:Defense wins ties and don't stop at 1.

Wow, an entirely new feature. As long as you own all the territories around a territory (or as long as there are no [other] armies inside your "ring of protection"), you don't have to keep anyone there.

Of course, once someone breaks your ring, they can advance without fighting (but they have to leave an army until they form a ring).

This way, attackers would have one more army to utilize in that desperate grab for a bonus/block/elimination.



















P.S. I'm only kidding.

technically the reason that defenders win ties is that if the attackers are stopped, its considered a win for the defenders who arent advancing, they want to say put

attacker dice actually do have more chance than defender dice*, however
1) that doesn't mean it will always happen
2) its only between 5 and 10% difference (go to some nerd site search with google for exact %)
3) people seem to forget that once they get 3 or less armies they dont fight with 3 dice anymore so dont expect to win 7 vs 4 or stuff like that too often

*if throwing with 3 attacking dice, or 2 dice vs 1

Here are the actual probabilities:

3 v 2 (A|D|T): 39.21%|28.63%|32.16%
7776 probable outcomes

2 v 2 (A|D|T): 22.76%|44.68%|32.56%
1296 probable outcomes

1 v 2 (A|D): 25.46%|74.54%
216 probable outcomes

3 v 1 (A|D): 65.97%|34.03%
1296 probable outcomes

2 v 1 (A|D): 57.87%|42.13%
216 probable outcomes

1 v 1 (A|D): 41.67%|58.33%
36 probable outcomes

Theories based on the numbers:

Always attack with 4+ armies (desperation?).
Always defend with 2+ armies (never leave any one alone?).

9 vs 11 is the first true 50/50 battle (you feeling lucky, punk?).
NOTE: I rounded 39.21 to 40 and 28.63 to 30 in order to have 10 die rolls work (in which case attacker loses 9 and defender loses 11!). Actually the first 8 rolls should result in 16 armies lost (7 attacker and 9 defender), meaning the last 2 rolls should be 2 v 1 [or 1 v 1] - at a loss of only 1 army per turn (resulting in either 1 attacker or 0 defender).

NOTE: Wouldn't 4 vs 5 work too? (No, because once attacker loses 1st army, they lose the 3rd attacking die).

Aerial Attack wrote:9 vs 11 is the first true 50/50 battle (you feeling lucky, punk?).

I notice you changed it from 8v10 to 9v11, closer to 50%, but not quite. The defender wins these battles much more often. The attacker only wins 31% of 9v11 battles, and almost exactly 40% of 10v11 battles.