Dice Advantage- Agressor's, Defender's, or Neutral

[insomniacdude]

Na. The dice would become WAY to unbalanced and the score would become useless, since (IMO) any points gained in this mode would be "invalid".

[Mr Unbeatable]

No it would make the attacker way to powerful and once you get a continent it would be near impossible to hold it till the next turn.

[Loy]

Everyone realizes this would only effect dice rolls if they were a TIE, right?

But I totally understand what some of the naysayers are saying. the dice now are how conquerclub's always been played 'n' such.

just think, when it comes down to a push game, this could change strategy completely.

I dunno, it's just a suggestion, if no one wants it i understand.

[plysprtz]

Then why not just leave it on all the time? No one would ever take it off if it made the dice better.

[the_fatty]

if this was here, then everyone could just go suicidal and win

[insomniacdude]

Everyone realizes this would only effect dice rolls if they were a TIE, right?

You want to play a game where the attacker has three dice that win the tie?

It would make more sense if your argument was switching offensive and defensive dice. Giving the offense only two dice and the defense three, and letting the offense win ties. That would actually mix up strategy.

The current idea is to give attack dice more weight without offsetting it in any way, shape, or form. That wouldn't change strategy. That would reduce it. Suicidal runs would be more common, since the defense has no advantage over the offense besides sheer luck of the draw. There would be more aggression without any sense of defensive balance, because it would be uneccessary. I don't know what school of knowlegde to which you adhere, but that is not strategy

[wrightfan123]

if this was here, then everyone could just go suicidal and win

You know, I agree with you... ahhhhhhh!!!!!

[Loy]

It would make more sense if your argument was switching offensive and defensive dice. Giving the offense only two dice and the defense three, and letting the offense win ties. That would actually mix up strategy.

I like this idea right here.

Mine was only a rough sketch, but insomniac just improved it.

Thanks insomniac

[Herakilla]

why not just swap defender/attacker dice

hence the attacker uses the 2 white dice and wins ties while the defender uses the three reds and loses ties

[CubColtPacer]

Everyone realizes this would only effect dice rolls if they were a TIE, right?

You want to play a game where the attacker has three dice that win the tie?

It would make more sense if your argument was switching offensive and defensive dice. Giving the offense only two dice and the defense three, and letting the offense win ties. That would actually mix up strategy.

The current idea is to give attack dice more weight without offsetting it in any way, shape, or form. That wouldn't change strategy. That would reduce it. Suicidal runs would be more common, since the defense has no advantage over the offense besides sheer luck of the draw. There would be more aggression without any sense of defensive balance, because it would be uneccessary. I don't know what school of knowlegde to which you adhere, but that is not strategy

If you switch the attacker and defender dice though, then the net effect of what the original poster wanted is gone. The attacker has an advantage even with losing ties if he has 3 dice. If you switch it and give the defender the three dice and the attacker the ability to win ties, you've suddenly given the defender an even bigger advantage and holding continents would be too easy.

I agree though that allowing attackers three dice and the ability to win ties means that attackers could take way too much territory per turn. It would cut down on strategy and become more of who got to the dice first to be the attacker instead of the defender.

[owyn999]

The only and I mean only way for this to work that I see is if and only if this is limited, say you can gain a point by taking an enemy out and can use that point at a future time in the game to get the agressor advantage. or even if it is set up to go into effect when you turn in two sets of cards in one turn. And once again.... only as an option

[Loy]

What if attacker and defender had two dice, but attacker would win ties?

[bamage]

What if attacker and defender had two dice, but attacker would win ties?

As it stands, doesn't the defender lose (on average) 1.17 armies for each army the attacker loses? Isn't there already enough of an attacker's advantage?

The other element of CC that makes it more attack-friendly than traditional Risk is the ability to advance only 1 or 2 armies into a conquered terrtiory, even if you attacked with 3 dice. In Risk, you generally have to advance at least a number of armies that is equal to the number of dice you rolled.

I think the game is already attacker-friendly enough. Good discussion though.

[wolfhound01]

i think rules for how you win a dice role should be changed its completly unfair when i get a 6 out of 3 dice and the one dice im rolling against also gets a 6 and i lose it should be no one loses the dice role or both people lose the dice role.

[Timminz]

The dice are already in favour of the attacker. Why would you want to make them more so?

[Ditocoaf]

i think rules for how you win a dice role should be changed its completly unfair when i get a 6 out of 3 dice and the one dice im rolling against also gets a 6 and i lose it should be no one loses the dice role or both people lose the dice role.

Hasbro, who made Risk, tried to balance the rules like this: The attacker gets more dice in most situations, but the defender wins a tie. This gives the attacker a slight advantage like Timminz said.

[erazor]

Can someone fix mine, because right now, they sucks!!!!