Dice

[Vaduzkrieg]

Disagree. The dice decide the game. I've seen it time and time again. The times I win the dice totally f*ck over my opponent and I get ridiculously lucky.
I had a South America in a game recently. I had a 5 man on the border defending. The attacker had 3 men. He won the battle. Didn't lose a man. Then took 2 more territories with singles on them. End turn. I have never, ever, ever won 3-5. I am purposely trying to attack 3-5 or 4-6 or 6-8 now to see if I can win one. So far I've done it about 20 times and I always lose. You can't win when the dice roll like that.

[Armandolas]

Disagree. The dice decide the game.

I disagree...the dice helps to decide the game(as expected when you decide to play a game with dices) and strategy will get you through most of the time. Off course there are games that dice gods just abandoned you, but those are clearly not the majority

[ntcbadabing]

Vaduz, from your post it looks like you've decided to change your strategy to attacks that are not in your favor, even if the dice were perfectly random.. I'm not sure I understand how you disagree strategy can be more effective than luck (or dice rolls) and then decide to change your strategy to one where you are at an even greater mathematical disadvantage. The odds of winning a 3v5 are very small, but odds are eventually you will win. In your example, you're hoping to use the example of a player attacking you at 3v5 who won (rare, but it will happen) as a rule in your other games. Just as you have decided to use what we're talking about here to give yourself a disadvantage, I'm sure you could devise a strategy to try to give yourself an advantage. What I do.. since the dice seem streaky to me, is if the dice gods aren't smiling on me, I quit my assaults in the game and move on to the next. I've even had games Arman used as an example where the dice gods abandon you so I use the strategy of just collecting my 3 each round and letting the others fight. I have won games where I seemed to lose 6 to 1 dice rolls simply by adjusting my strategy in those games. There is a necessity, at CC, to adjust strategy for individual games as well as all in general based on your understanding of the dice..

[degaston]

Disagree. The dice decide the game. I've seen it time and time again. The times I win the dice totally f*ck over my opponent and I get ridiculously lucky.
I had a South America in a game recently. I had a 5 man on the border defending. The attacker had 3 men. He won the battle. Didn't lose a man. Then took 2 more territories with singles on them. End turn. I have never, ever, ever won 3-5. I am purposely trying to attack 3-5 or 4-6 or 6-8 now to see if I can win one. So far I've done it about 20 times and I always lose. You can't win when the dice roll like that.

I took a look at your battle outcomes, and I can believe that when you win it's because the dice were good to you. But when you lose, I think it's mostly about how you are playing. Here are your battle stats (with some additional calculations):


... and here are mine for comparison:


The first thing that stands out is your assault rate (top right) of 53.72% is too low. This doesn't necessarily mean that you should attack more, in fact, I think you are attacking way too much. In the lower section, I can see that you're attacking much too often with 1v1, 2v2, and 1v2. All of these situations give you very bad odds, and should be avoided unless overridden by bonus considerations, or if the game is already won and you're trying to end it sooner. When you attack with bad odds in other situations, not only do you lose more troops, but you leave your borders weak, and make yourself an easy target for all of your opponents.

Even when you win with these attacks, you leave yourself with a very weak border that is easy for your opponent to counterattack. This leads to your biggest problem - your opponents are able to attack you 3v1 over 42% of the time! You are giving them an enormous advantage in dice odds when you spread yourself out too thin and leave your borders weakly protected. In my opinion, you're even attacking too much using 2v1. Yes, it has fairly good odds, but win or lose, you're left with a border that has only 2 troops on it. It's usually better to wait until your next turn, add an extra troop to the territory so that you're rolling 3v1, and then if you win you'll still have a border with 3 troops on it.

The bottom row of each table shows you and your opponents' expected win rates based on how much of each type of attack is performed. By attacking when you have fewer than 4 troops, and not defending your borders properly, you're giving your opponents a 3% advantage in their expected win rate over yours. That, not the dice, is the reason you don't do well. Nothing else you do is going to help until you learn when to stop attacking.

[Vaduzkrieg]

Ya all those attacks you see of me doing 2-1 or 2-2 are just to bring me down to singles so the game can end quickly (a forfeit button would be nice).
When the dice are against you and you know you are going to lose I just try to make it easy for the winner to clean me out. What's the point in playing when the dice have decided? I would love to wait until another time to attack when the dice are more friendly but in speed games you don't have that option. There are also games when I lose a 10-1. At that point I just gt so angry I purposely just wind my positions down to singles. So while your analysis is amazing my intent in most of those attacks is just to end the game. I usually will not attack a position unless I have at least double the troop strength.

And do you know how may games I have played recently where my opponent has said "wow that is a terrible drop for you" OR "I have never seen dice roll like that for a person"?

As for changing my strategy and using attacks of 3-5, that is not a change in strategy. All I am trying to do is see if I can ever win ONE of those types of battles. I lose them often enough BUT have yet to win one. Once I win ONE I will switch to playing normally again but I fear this may be the way I play for a long, long time. So if you guys want some easy points please come play me.

[degaston]

Okay, I hadn't considered the effect of trying to end lost games quickly. I don't play many 1v1 games, so I'm usually playing to win until I'm eliminated. I see that you play over 70% 1v1, so that would pretty much throw my analysis out the window. Damn - I thought I was on to something. I agree that there should be a resign button.

A few general suggestions: You might want to try more multiplayer games where luck is less of a factor. I would recommend not using auto-assault, so you can stop an attack if things aren't going well.Waiting until you have double the troops before you attack an opponent is probably too passive - you may be giving them an advantage in territory count bonuses. With bigger stacks, you should need less of a troop advantage before attacking is the correct play. And controlling your emotions is helpful.

Good luck.

[asellas1025]

I honestly doubt the Dice is random at all...I can't defend to save my life with more troops than the enemy...Since I've started this game period, I've rolled maybe two 6's the whole time on defending...As far as attacking goes, I am lucky to get through to one territory with more than one troop left on either...It's retarded...I just give up and push randomly because there is no point when my stats are always negative every freaking game...

[AslanTheKing]

... and here are mine for comparison:

could you do me one like this,
i really want to know whats wrong with me

[degaston]

could you do me one like this,
i really want to know whats wrong with me

Here you go (slightly reformatted from earlier versions):


When I first came up with this table, I thought it would be very useful for comparing the playing styles of different players to see what strategies are more successful. But now I think its usefulness is limited because I can't filter the stats based on game type. In your case, these results may be affected by the number of bot games you play, which I don't think represents a realistic game situation. Also, the strategies that work well for 1v1 games may not be appropriate for multiplayer games.

That said, the main thing that stands out to me is that your total assault rate (upper right) of 50.86% is just barely above your defend rate. In general, attacking is better than defending, so you should be assaulting as much as the conditions of the game will allow. Of course, if your opponent is good, then they will be assaulting just as much as you, but I don't think that applies to the majority of players on the site, so unless you are only playing highly skilled players, your assault rate should be quite a bit higher than your defend rate.

I think this also shows up in your rate of 3v1 assaults compared to 3v2. It's great to be able to attack 3v1 because it gives you the best expected win rate. But unless your opponents are defending their borders very poorly, then you are probably missing opportunities to attack larger stacks. Yes, the expected win rate for attacking 3v2 is not as high as 3v1, but it's still higher than the expected rate for defending 3v2. If you don't attack, then your opponent will, and you give that advantage to them.

[AslanTheKing]

thx for this great info,
so much to learn
i was always afraid to attack 3 vs1 or 3 vs2, i should do this more often

[ntcbadabing]

thx for this great info,
so much to learn
i was always afraid to attack 3 vs1 or 3 vs2, i should do this more often

For a 3 v 2 attack, you have to have a min of 4 in the territory you are attacking from. One army can't be used in attacking due to it has to remain in the territory.
If you only have 3 in the territory and you attack a 1 or a 2, it will be a 2v1 or 2v2 attack respectively.
You probably already know this, just figured I would clarify..

[rjhankey]

I've noticed the same streakiness -- especially when I'm playing 1v1 games -- I may even avoid those types of tournaments because those games are strongly luck driven (I've won quite a few of the games with that luck on my side, and my opponent has been hosed by the dice luck). I have found that 1v1 polymorphic games seem to be the way to go if you want to play 1v1 games, those seem to help balance out the dice luck.

I've tried slowing down and varying my click rate when attacking ... closing my browser and restarting ... funny thing is, leaving and coming back in has almost always given me better results on the next roll.

I also follow that same strategy -- I'll normally try a 4vX attack, as long as I have 4 troops, and usually if I have a way to reinf that terit if the 4v whatever attack goes south and I end up with 2 troops sitting there.

I've seen the ridiculous number of 6s that come up for the defender dice (and ties go to the defender) -- it still seems like the defender does have the advantage more often than he/she should.

[Gweeedo]

I've noticed the same streakiness -- especially when I'm playing 1v1 games -- I may even avoid those types of tournaments because those games are strongly luck driven (I've won quite a few of the games with that luck on my side, and my opponent has been hosed by the dice luck). I have found that 1v1 polymorphic games seem to be the way to go if you want to play 1v1 games, those seem to help balance out the dice luck.

I've tried slowing down and varying my click rate when attacking ... closing my browser and restarting ... funny thing is, leaving and coming back in has almost always given me better results on the next roll.

I also follow that same strategy -- I'll normally try a 4vX attack, as long as I have 4 troops, and usually if I have a way to reinf that terit if the 4v whatever attack goes south and I end up with 2 troops sitting there.

I've seen the ridiculous number of 6s that come up for the defender dice (and ties go to the defender) -- it still seems like the defender does have the advantage more often than he/she should.

Yes, this is true.
I have played Many a (board game..on a table) )game of Risk. It has always been Assault, Assault, Assault (with outstanding results)!!!

To focus on attack (like you would on a table game) will result in your downfall.
Conquers Club is not the same as Risk, gots to play it a bit different.

The Dice works the same for everybody...put a bit more thought in defense.

[Gweeedo]

I don't understand; when the dice are bad...they are bad all day long!

Who wants to play this game on days like that? I might play twice a week (provided I can roll higher than a four

[ntcbadabing]

Yes, this is true.
I have played Many a (board game..on a table) )game of Risk. It has always been Assault, Assault, Assault (with outstanding results)!!!

To focus on attack (like you would on a table game) will result in your downfall.
Conquers Club is not the same as Risk, gots to play it a bit different.

The Dice works the same for everybody...put a bit more thought in defense.

I've noticed this too.. I'm an aggressive player and not very fond of truces. Can't stand when a game starts out with one guy trucing another so then pretty much every other players asks someone for a truce and it's a stalemate from the get-go.. but back on topic.. I've noticed in CC when I go aggressive in games, there seems to be some kind of shared response that other players will step in and 'save' whoever I'm after, or attack me and just plain state that I'm playing the game as if it were a terminator game. With some experience now, I mix defense in with aggression more than I used to. The aggression is not always contagious, but the trucing is! Lol.. my point is strategy plays a big role.. you gotta factor in the general CC player reaction to play styles as well as dice luck, both seem just as streaky!

[zimmah]

The Dice ARE Random.

Perhaps you meant to say that the dice are not "fixed". They are definitely not random.

Random dice don't do this:

You are taking it out of context.

The Dice ARE Random. But can be streaky. You might have a run where you have perfect dice. Then the next 5 games you lose because of them.

The dice by defnition are not random.

They are grabbed from a pool, and when the pool is empty, the pool is refreshed. That's not random.

[rjhankey]

Streaky? Just a little I'd say ... Flang and I met up in a 1v1 recently as part of the non-classic nelson tournament ... as you can tell from these stats, the game result wasn't even close! I guess I just don't know how to click my mouse right to roll 6s.

[macbone]

They are grabbed from a pool, and when the pool is empty, the pool is refreshed. That's not random.

If I have 100,000 slips of paper with numbers on them ranging from 1-6 in a sack, close my eyes, reach in, and grab five, that seems like a good example of random to me. A better example would be an infinitely large sack with an infinite number of paper slips, though.

But my dice have been good for my last 25 battles, so maybe I'm just toeing the party line on this one. =)

[agentcom]

The Dice ARE Random.

Perhaps you meant to say that the dice are not "fixed". They are definitely not random.

Random dice don't do this:

You are taking it out of context.

The Dice ARE Random. But can be streaky. You might have a run where you have perfect dice. Then the next 5 games you lose because of them.

The dice by defnition are not random.

They are grabbed from a pool, and when the pool is empty, the pool is refreshed. That's not random.

Keep in mind that the scale of that graph shows that you roll 1's 0.5% less often than you roll 2's. I'm not denying that there is a proven problem with the "random" number generator, but the problem is very small. I've done some back-of-the-envelope analysis of it, and there's no way to gain a competitive advantage out of the discrepancies. It's unfortunate that CC hasn't "renewed" their subscription to the random number generator people (or whatever the problem is), but at the end of the day, it's not really that big a deal.

[hjelp]

I was curious about dice outcome as well so I checked my attacks during 1682 rolls. I had some bad strikes and lost a lot of troops but also good strikes and won a lot and finally in between as well. The maps played were various, as they were presented in order, as it was my turn to play. Each roll was considered to be a "new" attack. CC-statistics showed similar as rjhankey presented during the test as well. Below is a list of probabilities stated as attacker vs defender:

i j Event Symbol Probability
1 1 Defender loses 1, 15/36=0.417
1 1 Attacker loses 1, 21/36=0.583
1 2 Defender loses 1, 55/216=0.255
1 2 Attacker loses 1, 161/216=0.745
2 1 Defender loses 1, 125/216=0.579
2 1 Attacker loses 1, 91/216=0.421
2 2 Defender loses 2, 295/1296=0.228
2 2 Each lose1, 420/1296=0.324
2 2 Attacker loses 2, 581/1296=0.448
3 1 Defender loses 1, 855/1296=0.660
3 1 Attacker loses 1, 441/1296=0.340
3 2 Defender loses 2, 2890/7776=0.372
3 2 Each lose1, 2611/7776=0.336
3 2 Attacker loses 2, 2275/7776=0.293

The outcome of 3 vs 2 using 933 rolls (W T L) was: PERCENTAGE ; 40% ,33%,27%
To be compared to (list): PERCENTAGE; 37%,34%,29%

The outcome of 3 vs 1 using 685 rolls (W L) was: PERCENTAGE; 66%,34%
To be compared to (list): PERCENTAGE; 66%,34%

The rest of the rolls 2 vs 2 and 2 vs 1 and 1 vs 1 were to few to be reliable but they were:

The outcome of 2 vs 2 using 3 rolls (W T L) was: PERCENTAGE; 0%,33%,67%
To be compared to (list): PERCENTAGE; 23%,32%,45%

The outcome of 2 vs 1 using 41 rolls (W L) was: PERCENTAGE; 51%,49%
To be compared to (list): PERCENTAGE; 58%,42%

The outcome of 1 vs 1 using 20 rolls (W L) was: PERCENTAGE; 35%,65%
To be compared to (list): PERCENTAGE; 42%,58%

I think a player is more likely to "remember" bad dice due to frustration and tends to "forget" good dice. I don't think CC dice is malfunction.

[owenshooter]

I don't think CC dice is malfunction.

i liked the random.org dice better... but hey, i think you just go into every game, knowing that you have to have some restraint at some point, when attacking..-Jn