Menelaus wrote:I've noticed that a defender can roll 2 dice even when the attacker only rolls 1: Seems slightly unbalanced to me.
Also, as a sidenote, am pretty sure that in the tabletop version this was not in the core rules.
Couldn't find this talked about in a search, but do direct me if its already been discussed.
The attacker attacks from a territory with up to one less than the number of armies on the territory (capped at a maximum of three), while the defender defends a territory with as many armies as are on the territory (capped at a maximum of two).
Unlike in Risk, there is no discretion in choosing how many armies to use in the attack or in the defense. Also, here there is no requirement to advance the number of armies involved in the attack.
The first difference makes a lot of sense if you think about how the game is set up here. If the defender got to chose how many armies he would defend with he would need to be online during the attack.
In this game you should never attack a defender in a situation where you are not throwing more dice than the defender unless you are desperate. Due to the tie going to the defender the attacker is always at a disadvantage unless he throws more dice than the defender.
The odds of winning a 2v1, 1v1, or a 1v2 attack all favor the defender in increasing degree. A good player only executes this sort of attack in the most desperate situation.
As for being unbalanced, it is of course. But then again because something is offered to you doesn't mean it's a good idea to accept it (viz. Trojan Horse).