luck playing a very big part of risk?

[Kiron]

How many times have you seen a great strategy blown up in smokes due to a really bad luck of like losing 6 vs 1 or like 20 against 5? Isn't attacker suppose to have the advantage by dice percentage? I'm thinking of proposing an option for the attacker when attacking someone with 3 or more troops. The attacker can choose to trade one for one, so if say a 20 is attacking a 14 the attacking can automatically lose 12 troops to bring his opponent down to 2 troops. This way the attacker will know that his plan will be properly executed. Though this may seem ironic as the game is called risk, but i see risk more as a strategy game and not have ridiculous luck in the way, heck losing 30 man to kill 10 is just bad...especially in escalation where you need that 3 kills with 15 man and you just lose and your opponenet kills the player for the cards then cashes in for like 30+ troops and wins the game. Any comments?

[Spockers]

You can only ruin a "great strategy" yourself. The dice have nothing to do with it.


Firstly, don't use Auto-Attack unless you are prepared for the worst.

Do one roll at a time, and if luck is against you, stop and rebuild.

[jaybebo]

I think you are on to something Kiron. However, there have been numerous battles in history that have armies that have odds against them winning. Not to mention that defending armies are more apt to win against armies that are attacking. Agreed that losing 30 armies to 10 seems a bit over the top, it is not unheard of.

However, I think the implementation of maybe a general or bonus feature to armies that have completed and/or endured numerous attacks should be given a X-factor for their valiant efforts...just a thought.

[freezie]

Luck as always been part of this game...''RISK'' shows it.


I think it's a bad idea..there wouldn't be a point in holding on even if you know you're about to lose without the luck factor.

[Griefor]

It's not just the dice.

There's luck involved in starting positions.

And then there's decisions of other players. One might just decide to evacuate the continent you're taking, or one might decide to put 12 armies on your final square to get while you're not the strongest player and he's the weakest and has no chance of actually taking it (ie - not the greatest tactical move).

Still, it's kind of like poker - any idiot can win, but a good player will win more in the long run.

[RobinJ]

How many times have you seen a great strategy blown up in smokes due to a really bad luck of like losing 6 vs 1 or like 20 against 5? Isn't attacker suppose to have the advantage by dice percentage? I'm thinking of proposing an option for the attacker when attacking someone with 3 or more troops. The attacker can choose to trade one for one, so if say a 20 is attacking a 14 the attacking can automatically lose 12 troops to bring his opponent down to 2 troops. This way the attacker will know that his plan will be properly executed. Though this may seem ironic as the game is called risk, but i see risk more as a strategy game and not have ridiculous luck in the way, heck losing 30 man to kill 10 is just bad...especially in escalation where you need that 3 kills with 15 man and you just lose and your opponenet kills the player for the cards then cashes in for like 30+ troops and wins the game. Any comments?

GFY

[freezie]

How many times have you seen a great strategy blown up in smokes due to a really bad luck of like losing 6 vs 1 or like 20 against 5? Isn't attacker suppose to have the advantage by dice percentage? I'm thinking of proposing an option for the attacker when attacking someone with 3 or more troops. The attacker can choose to trade one for one, so if say a 20 is attacking a 14 the attacking can automatically lose 12 troops to bring his opponent down to 2 troops. This way the attacker will know that his plan will be properly executed. Though this may seem ironic as the game is called risk, but i see risk more as a strategy game and not have ridiculous luck in the way, heck losing 30 man to kill 10 is just bad...especially in escalation where you need that 3 kills with 15 man and you just lose and your opponenet kills the player for the cards then cashes in for like 30+ troops and wins the game. Any comments?

GFY

Seconded.

[Enrak]

While I can appreciate the view that more numbers are better its just one of those things that make the game more challenging. If simple numbers always won, why would anyone bother with tactics? Just horde enough men and your bound to win. Wheres the back-stabbing sneaky git methods that are so fun to use and so frustrating to have used against you?