Conquer Club

anyone got a good strategy for myself, i regularly lose rolls, guaranteed to lose when its an even number each side, and pretty much always when i even have 9 and the one i'm attacking has 2, useless dice, i know there's no strategy against luck. just fancied moaning.

This surely sucks and everyone of us knows these situations! As you are very new, I will write down some ways you can keep luck-influence under control (NOT in a single game, but in a large quantity it should even out):
1. Play team games - it is seldom so that all 4 players from team A are lucky while the other 4 aren't --> so luck evens far more out in team games, the more players the better
2. Learn "special" maps, where strategy is very important (Stalingrad, Poison Rome etc.)
3. Stop rolling: Always think: What does a 1:1 bring for me and my foe, what does a 0:2 bring for me and my move. There will be a point when stopping to roll is the optimum decision
4. Become an expert for certain settings, e.g. by joining the SoC-academy, where you will learn a lot about escalating games and terminator games.

Luck is a state of mind.

Luigi, I took a look at your dice stats, and it looks like you're often rolling when the odds are against you. In general, it's best to roll when you have 4+ troops in one territory, except for 3v1, and even then, ask yourself if you can wait a turn and add 1 more to make that a 4v1 (see elsewhere in this forum the relative merits of attacking with 3v1 dice or waiting). Don't roll the same number of dice or fewer than your opponent - so if you only have 3 troops in one territory, don't attack another territory that has 2+ troops in it unless you're desperate (e.g. you could eliminate someone in terminator or for spoils, say - there are times to roll, but in most situations, you should wait).

This is from your dice stats on your profile:



You haven't played a lot of games yet, so the more you play, the more you'll see your luck even out. You've apparently been pretty lucky in your 1v1 rolls (you have 2, the other guy has 1). You really shouldn't be rolling those, and stay away from the 2v1 and 1v2 as well.

Here's a breakdown of expected odds:

Attacker: one die; Defender: one die:

Attacker wins 15 out of 36 (41.67 %)
Defender wins 21 out of 36 (58.33 %)


Attacker: two dice; Defender: one die:

Attacker wins 125 out of 216 (57.87 %)
Defender wins 91 out of 216 (42.13 %)


Attacker: three dice; Defender: one die:

Attacker wins 855 out of 1296 (65.97 %)
Defender wins 441 out of 1296 (34.03 %)


Attacker: one die; Defender: two dice:

Attacker wins 55 out of 216 (25.46 %)
Defender wins 161 out of 216 (74.54 %)


Attacker: two dice; Defender: two dice:

Attacker wins both: 295 out of 1296 (22.76 %)
Defender wins both: 581 out of 1296 (44.83 %)
Both win one: 420 out of 1296 (32.41 %)


Attacker: three dice; Defender: two dice:

Attacker wins both: 2890 out of 7776 (37.17 %)
Defender wins both: 2275 out of 7776 (29.26 %)
Both win one: 2611 out of 7776 (33.58 %)

Source: http://www.plainsboro.com/~lemke/risk/

As you can see, attacking 4+ vs. 1 (three attacker dice, one defender die) gives you the best odds, followed by 4+ vs. 2+ (three attacker, two defender), followed by 3 v 1 (two vs. one). Avoid rolling 3v2 (two vs. two), 2v2 (one vs. two), and 2v1 (one vs. one).

If you haven't picked up the Assault Odds add-on yet, you can find it in the Tools and Enhancements forum, along with some other nifty add-ons to help improve your CC experience.

See everything that macbone said. My rule-of-thumb is that I need twice as many attackers as defenders to expect to win. If I remember correctly, the defender advantage goes down with the number of troops involved, though, so you are more likely to win a 100 v 100 battle than a 10 v 10. In any case, until you get to very high numbers I would only attack if you have twice as many as the defender (3x if you want to guarantee the win). Even then, before you start attacking, set a minimum threshold: you will stop attacking when you troop count drops to x number of troops. Sometimes you are lucky and sometimes the defender is: the key to victory is to good strategy that allows for the variance of luck.

The 2x the number of the troops is a good general rule of thumb for a guaranteed win but not a good game play rule of thumb IMO.

If you only assault stacks or go for kills when you have 2x the number of troops as your opponent you will lose games because you are missing opportunities.

Look at a 10 v 6 assault. It is 80% to win. Would you not make this assault because it is only 66% more troops and not 100% more than your attacker? Doing so means someone else will try the assault succeed and take the win.

When I first started on this site I used the 2x attacking troops rule of thumb and found it often resulted in me waiting to long and missing chances to take the win because I didn't have that magical 2x the troop number.

If you're running Firefox, use the Assault Odds calculator and get precise odds for the attack path you're planning.

But if for whatever reason you need to use a simple rule-of-thumb, here's the one I always used: Troops needed = Number of Enemy Troops + Number of Enemy Terts + 4.

2X is too many.

There are also situations where it's advantageous to attack against the odds, in 1v1 games at least. If losing seems imminent then you may as well try whatever you can and the dice might magically go your way.

However, I mean this as an actual strategy. If you're opponent has a couple of large stacks which both need to be dealt with and your stacks aren't in a position to do anything, split your deploy and hit your enemy's stacks. You'll at least take a few armies off, if not get lucky and win the battle.

This is especially useful in foggy trench games.

2x is a rule of thumb, meaning there are lots of exceptions. As macbone pointed out, the OP has been doing lots of attacks where the odds of success were way out of his favor, so he needs to understand that winning battles consistently requires significantly more troops than the defender. Thus the 2x rule. Certainly there are many occasions when you should attack 10 v 6, etc. But if you are attacking a fortified position and must win it, you should wait for 2x or something close to that.

I like to keep a reserve behind the lines, usually adding two to it every turn. That allows me to take the risk of a 10 v 6 or 14 v 8: if I lose all, I reinforce from the reserve. If the defender lost none, sometimes they don't even know they were attacked!

AyeTrain wrote:But if you are attacking a fortified position and must win it, you should wait for 2x or something close to that.

If you MUST win the assault I don't get why you would wait for 2x the troops? IE if your up and have a 25 v 20 to take out a player with 5 cards would you not try that assault? If you don't odds are likely the player following you could cash and kill that player resulting in you losing the game.

I would say 2x the troops is warranted maybe 10-20% of the time if that.

Jippd wrote:

AyeTrain wrote:But if you are attacking a fortified position and must win it, you should wait for 2x or something close to that.

If you MUST win the assault I don't get why you would wait for 2x the troops? IE if your up and have a 25 v 20 to take out a player with 5 cards would you not try that assault? If you don't odds are likely the player following you could cash and kill that player resulting in you losing the game.

I would say 2x the troops is warranted maybe 10-20% of the time if that.

Yes, in that situation I would try it. If the alternative is losing the game then any odds are worth it. I meant a situation where you must win or you will be left vulnerable, such as when trying to take a chokepoint, or when launching the first assault of what you expect will be a major war. Part of your tactical assessment should be the question of what happens if you lose, and if that is unacceptable, you'll need to wait for overwhelming superiority, such that you can be nearly certain of success.

Geez this will really save me lots of troops. I have been using 2x until now.

I was just reading further about this online, after reading this post.
According to a number of places the best stat for invading is 1.5 * number of armys + number of territory.
I don't know if this is true, but lots of place seem to agree.

Having a bad run of late much to my annoyance felt the need to share



The shouldn't really be used rolls (2v2, 2v1, 1v2, 1v1) are there because I not getting conquests with the good ones (3v2,3v1) and needed spoils (didn't help much mind) the one that made me post this was 6 on 1 (99% likely) that failed much to my annoyance (and likely consequental doom next turn)

/rant

Feeling a bit better now

Too much luck involved in CC - seen several examples already today where I had a 13v3 and lost 10 and stopped, whereas they go 5v8 and win without losing one. Then there's the great 9v1 I lost earlier today as well. Generators are never unbiased.

My dice have been bad all week long.
I have noticed that I do not win on attacks. while my defending dice are OK
So lately I steer towered defense rather than Assault.
Many a games I look at dice stats and see me at -47 really sucks while the other guy is at +32
Strange thing with the dice I lose about 78% when I do 4vs1 But win 85% 3vs1 Go figure

luigidelhaytero wrote:anyone got a good strategy for myself, i regularly lose rolls, guaranteed to lose when its an even number each side, and pretty much always when i even have 9 and the one i'm attacking has 2, useless dice, i know there's no strategy against luck. just fancied moaning.

I read somewhere that on an 11vs11 battle is the last time the defender has the odds when each army attacking is at an equal size (meaning the attacker has 12 on that territory). So you are more likely to lose if attacking from a five territory to a four territory, let alone a four to a four which is what I'm reading.

corrupteddrake wrote:I was just reading further about this online, after reading this post.
According to a number of places the best stat for invading is 1.5 * number of armys + number of territory.
I don't know if this is true, but lots of place seem to agree.

This is a good formula to follow if you're more conservative or if you're attacking from a lot of different points.

Say you have to eliminate three terts, a 5, a 4, and a 1. Following this formula, you'd need 23 troops, which gives you a 98.5% chance of success (note, there's still a 1.5% chance of failure, but I generally go for it on anything above 50%, unless it's a tight game and I'm feeling more cautious).

If you use the formula for number of armies + number of territories to conquer + 1 (for the troops you leave behind) + X (whatever the extra troops are that you feel comfortable with), you'd need at least 14 troops for a 73% chance of success, still comfortable for me, but you'll fail on this attack 1 in 4 times.

If you're attacking from multiple places in multiple lines, though, you'll need more troops overall. The Assault Odds add-on is great for figuring this out, but you can estimate on the fly, too.

Say you have three different starting stacks. Each one has to kill three different territories - a 5, a 4, and a 1.

If your odds are 90% for three different attacking stacks, your total odds of success will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 72%, so the first formula is solid. Using 18 troops gives you about a 91.5% chance of success for each attack, so you'll need 54 troops in all.

If you use the second, and your odds are only about 70% each time, if you have three different attack stacks, the chances are only about 35% that you'll pull it off, too low for me, so you'll need more troops. In this case, 14x3, or 42 troops, is too few.

Using Assault Odds, 54 troops gives you about a 77% chance of success, a pretty comfortable margin for me. The minimum for me would be 16 in each stack, for 48 troops in all.

Ghost0204 wrote:Too much luck involved in CC - seen several examples already today where I had a 13v3 and lost 10 and stopped, whereas they go 5v8 and win without losing one. Then there's the great 9v1 I lost earlier today as well. Generators are never unbiased.

Yeah, I know, the dice can be frustrating, can't they?

I had a similar experience the last time I went to a casino with my buddies. I kept winning at the roulette wheel (I'm not a big better, but I was able to double my initial $20 stake, at which point I stopped, satisfied). My friend wasn't so lucky, and kept losing. Random numbers are like that. Sometimes you get on a good roll, and sometimes you get on a bad roll. In the case of the casino, it overall made money, because although I and some of my buddies did well, the rest of us didn't, and overall as a group, we lost a bit of money. Over time, the dice tend to even out.

I just had to break a bonus. I had 9 troops, and I had to take a 1, a 3, and a 3. I took them all without losing a single troop.

Another time, I was playing my wife in Godrisk, and I couldn't win a single dice roll. I'd roll 5s, and she'd roll all 6s, or I'd roll a 4, 2, and 1, and she'd roll a 4 and a 3. That's just the nature of luck-based games like Conquer Club.

nàme wrote:

luigidelhaytero wrote:anyone got a good strategy for myself, i regularly lose rolls, guaranteed to lose when its an even number each side, and pretty much always when i even have 9 and the one i'm attacking has 2, useless dice, i know there's no strategy against luck. just fancied moaning.

I read somewhere that on an 11vs11 battle is the last time the defender has the odds when each army attacking is at an equal size (meaning the attacker has 12 on that territory). So you are more likely to lose if attacking from a five territory to a four territory, let alone a four to a four which is what I'm reading.

Yup. If you roll 12v12, you have a 50% chance of winning the battle and conquering the territory. 11v11 is slightly under 50% (49.4%).

Generally, if you have to take the territory, you'll need at least the number of troops there + the number of territories (1, in this case), plus the 1 you have to leave behind, so if I'm attacking a 4, I want to have at least 6, if not 7 or 8 for a buffer. If I'm playing a team game or a 1v1 game, I'll still roll 5v4 or 4v4, as long as I have at least 4 troops to attack with, because I should be able to at least reduce the other player's troops there. But if you must take the territory, yeah, you'll need more troops. Even for a territory with 12, I still want to attack with at least 14 if I have to take it.

I think it is all Fascinating.
Does anybody play by these rules (figures)?

It is like having a Engineer come up to you and tell you how many nails to put in the board and then to go on telling you where to put them.
Go with what you feel.
It is not always about how many units you must allocate to a forthcoming battle in order to get the best odds.

For sure, I will generally go ahead and Attack if I have 3 units sitting next to 1 units. (edited)
I do win at least 50 % (In fact it is much higher) of the time on a 3vs1
Many a time I will only put 1 unit on a 2er knowing that I have a good (better than a 4 to 1 being that it has been my experience that I lose more than 50% percent of the time when I go 4 to 1) ) chance of winning that battle.
I will stay away from 4vs1. I need to put one more unit on my 4 units to give 'me' a better chance of winning the battle.
Anyway, the best case scenario is not always going to favor the odds. (I am not sure what the hell that means)

12vs12 is not good odds if you want to take a terit. Not many war games favor a 1 to 1
Neither is a 16vs12

If somebody loses a battle on a 46vs25 they get real upset. same as a 23vs12 or a 11vs6
Well with a 11vs6 most people will not fly off the handle. But you get a guy losing a 46vs25 WHOA! Watch the sh*t hit the fan.
I do not get too deep into the math of it. Just the simple odds. and If you really need a terit you should have at least a 2 to 1 odds...maybe 3 to 2.

I apologize If I am on a different subject (tangent) matter and disrupted your thread.

Be the dice feel the dice become one with the dice...kinda hard to do that on a computer game.
I find it easier to control the dice while playing a table board game.

Good night
P.S. Pardon my spelling and bad grammar. It is late and I can not see strait. this screen is way to bright.

waltero wrote:It is not always about how many units you must allocate to a forthcoming battle in order to get the best odds.

For sure, I will generally go ahead and Attack if I have 3 units sitting next to 2 units.
I do win at least 50 % (In fact it is much higher) of the time on a 3vs1
Many a time I will only put 1 unit on a 2er knowing that I have a good (better than a 4 to 1 being that it has been my experience that I lose more than 50% percent of the time when I go 4 to 1) ) chance of winning that battle.
I will stay away from 4vs1. I need to put one more unit on my 4 units to give 'me' a better chance of winning the battle.
Anyway, the best case scenario is not always going to favor the odds. (I am not sure what the hell that means)

Yeah, almost all striped players think that way.
Interestingly, Colonels, Brigadiers and most Majors don't.

Take your conclusions.

P.S. I'm saying this for your own good and for you to improve as a player.

Waltero, you attack 3 v 2? It's pretty much proven that you shouldn't do that.

Beko is right. No one is trying to put you down, but that just doesn't work. You stop doing all of that and actually listen to the players that write the helpful guides, your rank will creep on upwards without even trying. Most of us here aren't even working to maintain a rank. I know from previous posts, that you think we do. Major is kinda the easy one to get and sit at without effort provided you're not doing anything silly, because it has a 500 point margin.

Edit: I meant 3v1

Correction, I put 3v2 and then said I will usually attack at a 3 to 1 (meaning 3 units assaulting 1 unit)...3v2 is not a 3 to 1 battle in any situation).

I never (unless I really have too) do a 3v2!



No worries, I understand that my game play needs improvement and I do know that the forum is a good place for helping newbs to better improve there game.

Maybe some day I will get a better understanding of the odds table ( I am talking about the refined meticulous odds that some people use, find) For now I will just keep it simple.

First thing on my list is to try and get away from that dang Auto Assault button!!!!
I am sure my game would improve immensely.

I have much more to say on this matter; Luck vs odds and the dice factor vs the fun factor.

Can't take the luck out of this game. Sure you can limit the odds and have more 'in game options' But too those who play with the odds ( I mean strictly playing them as to ''never'' making an assault unless the odds are with them) it will always be about luck.
You win or you will lose, all because of luck.
Like I said, too much math. Basic odds are goo enough for a game like this.
Anything other than keeping it basic would be taking all the fun out of the game.
Specially when those of you who only play against other players who play according to your rules. and If you play against others like myself you will automatically consider (any loss) it luck.
I do believe many of the High rank players use the simple odds table.
Anyhow I got to go.
would like to explain the Spiritual (if I may call it that) side of dice vs the odds (math) and this game and how it should be played.

Have fun

What about Bob. Do you really think it is necessary to play with bob?
Maybe for some.
My guess is he prevents you from playing your own game.

delete

Baby steps, waltero, baby steps. =)

Personally, I love BOB, and I'll admit that playing with it, I'm not as good when I don't have it.

It's awesome to be able to look at a board like Stalingrad or Northwest Passage and see which terts attack which other terts, or if they bombard or one-way assault.

Before I picked up BOB, I'd make notes in game chat or on paper about who I could see on the board in fog games. Now, BOB enables me to take snaps of those positions.

It's also great to help figure out what terts are part of which bonuses on unfamiliar maps.

Conquer Club is far less enjoyable to me when I don't have BOB.

And I don't use formulas to estimate troops usually - I use another nifty add-on called Assault Odds to give me percentages for success, for multiplayer Term/Standard games, anyway. It's only when I don't have access to Assault Odds, or I don't want to be bothered with inputting all the troop numbers that I estimate the troops needed.

It's like playing chess online or via correspondence vs. in real life. With an online chess site, you can analyze the board and take your time to study the board. When I sit down to play chess with a buddy, I am immediately tense and remain that way until the game is won or lost. It's the same thing when I play Risk with friends now. I'm a lot more careful than I used to be, and it's a lot more stressful, too. =)