The Improbable Always Wins....WTF?

[MNDuke]

The real answer is that they can't answer these questions honestly. And most certainly can't back up their suggestions without any kind of specifics that make sense in the rational world.

Oh, you are accusing me of dishonesty now? Please point out where I have not been truthful. Can you back up your accusation?

Nah. You are a waste of time and space. This wasn't even directed at you, but go ahead and make it as such, I wouldn't expect you to get out of the way of your own ego. You pick and chose when and what you want to answer. You interject with personal attacks and clearly aren't interested in a rational discussion. You are here to pick fights and get your jollies and I'm not interested in playing Santa Claus with you. Bicker with someone else, because I'm not having it. Feel free to continue derailing the discussion though, by slandering, quoting out of context and whatever means necessary. Lord knows you will as old habits die hard.

What to expect: Natty will find something I have said, quote it and say "you do it too." Yawn. Elementary games are just that; elementary.

[natty dread]

Nah. You are a waste of time and space.

Really? That seems to me like a personal attack. Which is funny, because in the same post you go on to claim...

You interject with personal attacks

So. Please show me where I have used any personal attacks against you or anyone else in this discussion.

A little hint though: me saying what I think about dice whiners in general is not a personal attack, since it's not directed against anyone personally. If you choose to take it as such, it's your problem, not mine.

and clearly aren't interested in a rational discussion.

Yeah, anyone who doesn't agree with you clearly isn't interested in a rational discussion.

Seriously though, I find this the most ironic of your assertions. I have tried to present my arguments to this discussion rationally, backing up my arguments with rational logic. You, on the other hand, resort to insults and personal attacks every time you fail to come up with any reasonal counterarguments. Then you blame me of "not being interested in a rational discussion". Can you see the irony here? Oh wait... why am I even trying to reason with you, you'll just ignore this again and answer with another "you are using personal attax! gfy! you suck!"

You are here to pick fights and get your jollies and I'm not interested in playing Santa Claus with you. Bicker with someone else, because I'm not having it.

If this is true, again, why not report me for improper conduct? If you're so sure that I'm merely trolling and "picking fights", then you should report my every post, and the mods will surely ban me quickly to keep me from "picking fights".

If you didn't want to "bicker" with me, you could just ignore my posts, or even better, present some rational counter-arguments against mine. Instead of, you know, what you are doing now. Is there a reason why you are unable to do either? Some weird medical condition perhaps?

[MNDuke]

What to expect: Natty will find something I have said, quote it and say "you do it too." Yawn. Elementary games are just that; elementary.

Sound about right?

[Woodruff]

The real answer is that they can't answer these questions honestly. And most certainly can't back up their suggestions without any kind of specifics that make sense in the rational world.

Some of us have. You just don't like the answer.

well then can u shortly describe at least 2 or 3 strategies that I as an old-timer use? cuz I cant.

Given that I am not an old-timer who had a tremendous amount of success (until I started actually paying attention more closely a month or so ago, I sat at private for most of my time here), I really can't.

I guess you are right. I don't like the answer.

Apparently that's correct, since you cherry-picked one statement of mine to show as evidence. I would suggest that my willingness to say such a thing shows that I'm coming at this discussion from an honest perspective. Unlike some.

[MNDuke]

I appreciate the honesty. I honestly do, but it kind of makes it hard to take a suggestion like you need to change and adapt your strategy seriously when you can't provide examples to back up this suggestion. It just kind of comes across as a talking point. The honesty is appreciated.

[TheForgivenOne]

3dice vs 2 dice fail roughly (very roughtly) 1/3th of the time, they kill 1 and loose 1 1/3th of the time and they will win 1/3th of the time. Meaning that if you thow a 6-3 you have only to loose 1 sets of rolls totally and middle the other. This (or worse) WILL happen about 44% OF THE TIMES YOU ATTACK 6-3..

but two times in the same round, in the same game? hm, ok and what you could tell me about others attacks? what about victory 5:5? is this also normal?

Based on your "In the same game?" question, you are basically saying if you flip back to back heads with a coin, you will say WTF THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. It's roughly the same if 44% of the time you attack 6-3 and lose twice.

[theBastard]

There's a Risk that the battle won't end as you expect it to. That's why you have to weigh the Risks against the benefits.

just one notice. natty you said that CC is based on board game Risk with it dice and so on. then where are different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery)?


to TheForgivenOne. do you think it is everything all right when 6:3 could lost in 44%???

[maasman]

There's a Risk that the battle won't end as you expect it to. That's why you have to weigh the Risks against the benefits.

just one notice. natty you said that CC is based on board game Risk with it dice and so on. then where are different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery)?


to TheForgivenOne. do you think it is everything all right when 6:3 could lost in 44%???

The different units just determine the number of armies you have there. They have no purpose beyond counting the troops you have, and there is nothing special about them.

[natty dread]

What to expect: Natty will find something I have said, quote it and say "you do it too." Yawn. Elementary games are just that; elementary.

Sound about right?

Nope, sounds more like you're projecting your own personal flaws on me. Again.

[Woodruff]

but it kind of makes it hard to take a suggestion like you need to change and adapt your strategy seriously when you can't provide examples to back up this suggestion.

How can I possibly provide examples when I don't know what your strategy has been? However, my point still stands in that when an integral part of the game changes, it makes sense that your strategy should change with it.

One possibility could be paying closer attention to the dice-results, in an effort to avoid those "ugly streaks". If after two attacks, it's looking like "one of those times", then simply stop attacking completely unless it is a game-changing necessity. One escalating card is not necessarily going to be worth losing 10 armies at that point. Or if the dice streak seems to be favoring you, take on a bit more of a risk than you might, perhaps taking a shot at that board run that looks "dicey" (if you'll pardon the expression <smile>).

[Woodruff]

There's a Risk that the battle won't end as you expect it to. That's why you have to weigh the Risks against the benefits.

just one notice. natty you said that CC is based on board game Risk with it dice and so on. then where are different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery)?

You must be speaking of Waterloo. The different units have different attack capabilities, but they use the same dice. By attack capabilities, I mean:
Infantry: Attack as normal.
Cavalry: Can "skip one space" to attack.
Artillery: Can "bombard" certain specified spaces, meaning they can't conquer them, but they can destroy them (make them neutral).

to TheForgivenOne. do you think it is everything all right when 6:3 could lost in 44%???

I would think so, yes...that seems about right actually.

There's a Risk that the battle won't end as you expect it to. That's why you have to weigh the Risks against the benefits.

just one notice. natty you said that CC is based on board game Risk with it dice and so on. then where are different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery)?

to TheForgivenOne. do you think it is everything all right when 6:3 could lost in 44%???

The different units just determine the number of armies you have there. They have no purpose beyond counting the troops you have, and there is nothing special about them.

Incorrect.

[MNDuke]

What to expect: Natty will find something I have said, quote it and say "you do it too." Yawn. Elementary games are just that; elementary.

Sound about right?

Nope, sounds more like you're projecting your own personal flaws on me. Again.

BAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHHHHHAAAHAHAAAHA. You make me laugh.

[SirSebstar]

just one notice. natty you said that CC is based on board game Risk with it dice and so on. then where are different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery)?

.....

The different units just determine the number of armies you have there. They have no purpose beyond counting the troops you have, and there is nothing special about them.

Incorrect.

your statement of incorrect is incorrect
a cavalry unit stands for 5 infantry unit and a artillery piece stood for 10..
thank you for playing

[maasman]

just one notice. natty you said that CC is based on board game Risk with it dice and so on. then where are different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery)?

.....

The different units just determine the number of armies you have there. They have no purpose beyond counting the troops you have, and there is nothing special about them.

Incorrect.

your statement of incorrect is incorrect
a cavalry unit stands for 5 infantry unit and a artillery piece stood for 10..
thank you for playing

Yeah, if he's talking the actual board game, then I'm right. If he's talking waterloo (which I don't think he is), then you're right.

[Woodruff]

just one notice. natty you said that CC is based on board game Risk with it dice and so on. then where are different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery)?

.....

The different units just determine the number of armies you have there. They have no purpose beyond counting the troops you have, and there is nothing special about them.

Incorrect.

your statement of incorrect is incorrect
a cavalry unit stands for 5 infantry unit and a artillery piece stood for 10..
thank you for playing

Not on the Waterloo map, they're not. Thank you for playing.

[TheForgivenOne]

There's a Risk that the battle won't end as you expect it to. That's why you have to weigh the Risks against the benefits.

just one notice. natty you said that CC is based on board game Risk with it dice and so on. then where are different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery)?


to TheForgivenOne. do you think it is everything all right when 6:3 could lost in 44%???

And you expect to win 6vs3 every single time? I don't, I just hope and pray they do. If they don't, I move. It's just a game

[theBastard]

And you expect to win 6vs3 every single time? I don't, I just hope and pray they do. If they don't, I move.

no, ofcourse. just 44% is too much. about 30% would be fine.

It's just a game

therefore I´m still here and did not shut myself

[TheForgivenOne]

And you expect to win 6vs3 every single time? I don't, I just hope and pray they do. If they don't, I move.

no, ofcourse. just 44% is too much. about 30% would be fine.

You can't change odds

[theBastard]

You can't change odds

wait, you mean it is not possible to change dice? percentage of victory/loss?

sorry my english...

[natty dread]

No, they shouldn't be changed, because it wouldn't be the same game anymore.

[theBastard]

No, they shouldn't be changed, because it wouldn't be the same game anymore.

hm, I mean change it general. not only for 6:3.

and when it is not possible, about what or for what we debate here?

[natty dread]

No, they shouldn't be changed, because it wouldn't be the same game anymore.

hm, I mean change it general. not only for 6:3.

and when it is not possible, about what or for what we debate here?

I mean what I say. If you change the assault odds, it won't be the same game anymore. So they shouldn't be changed.

[theBastard]

but all this debate (and also others topics) are about change the game... change the dice (odds). ofcourse it will be the same game, just with another dice...

[TheForgivenOne]

You can't change odds

wait, you mean it is not possible to change dice? percentage of victory/loss?

sorry my english...

What you are asking for, changing 44% to 30%, is like asking if you can change the odds of flipping a head from 50% to 75%

[theBastard]

I played original "Risk" game, where is shown how cubes works and now I understand about you talking.

but what I do not undersand, wha is impossible here in CC change this dice? you spoke "it is not possible" but why? I mean why is impossible to add 6:3 70% victory, why it must be 66%?

(maybe it is because my bad english, maybe because I run out from school too often )...