Conquer Club

I hope this never happens. Sure, the dice can be annoying, but that is the essence of RIS... er CC. With the dice as they are, you really need to have two plans. One for good dice, and one for bad. And then you can hope for exceptional dice but counting on them usually means your screwed. Adding in the option to just have a straight 1-1 attack would just make it feel like it wasn't CC. And it wouldn't be.

I'd love this option, and maybe another option to make it 1v1 the whole game.

im not a big fan of the idea, but if it was an option when creating a game it wouldn't have any effect on the people that dont like it, bit like flate rate or esculating with the cards.

"Dice Alteration" merged with existing "No dice games".
[Sorry it took me so long to find the existing thread!]

Cicero

Personally - I still think this is a good idea.

C.

I think it should be in the form of three buttons instead of two: Attack, Auto-Attack, and Safe Attack (in which both players lose one army)

wouldn't this hugely cut strategic flexibility? First one to get the better bonus wins, so only 2 strategies are left, going for a continent, or taking a lot of territories...

I myself am a huge fan of leaving 2 armies on good terits to watch my opponent's 10 armies bleed to death

Hello? Option. If you need to get good luck, you can do the normal attack or auto-attack. Safe attack will be fore breaking bonuses when you have more troops, and finishing off players for a set to save yourself in 10 v. 3 attacks. I just about lost a game (still going) where I eliminated a player to the last territory then when attacked his territory with 3 men using my 10, I lost and basically gave the game to someone else, who eliminated that person for a set. In cases like that the Safe Attack would be useful, otherwise, you can attack and hope for good roles.

And so, because you lose a 10v3 at times, you want an option that makes it impossible to lose 10v3, but it remains possible to win 3v10.

If people really want this, it should be an option to play your games entirely without dice or simply as it is, but what is this game without some good or bad luck at times?

I guess much more strategy would be needed if this was implemented...
interesting...

i was thinking for those people who rather the stratagy rather than the luck in this game the could be an option were the dice are taken out of the game and replaced with something like this

Everytime you attack you both lose an army


so you would always need more armies than the other players.



What do you think?
Could it work?

or does to many players love the dice, (even though there always complaning lol)

Been suggested multiple times before, might even be on the "to do" list I"m not sure

i thought it might of been suggested before but i thought better do it just in case it didn't.

I would favour a combination of this with dice determining some of the outcome. For example: if 20 armies attack 6 they should win every time. But how many are lost in the conquest should be part formula (perhaps a guaranteed 50% casualty rate i.e. 1 attacking army lost per two defenders destroyed, so the attacker know he'll lose 3 armies but WILL conquer that territory) and part dice for the random element (so he might lose somewhere between no additional casualaties and up to a maximum of the enemies' total strength of 6).

Under the current arrangement, we all click the attack button with a shiver of fear that the 20 armies will be mangled or otherwise outrageously damaged, possibly not even managing to take the target. My rough proposal above (and I'm sure it can be honed) gives you a result of somewhere between 50% to 150% of enemy strength as your casualties. So in the example 20 attack 6, u know u will conquer but lose somewhere between 3 and 9 armies in so doing.

Merged the threads "No Dice Option" and "No Dice Games".

Personally, I would only use the type of roll where you win one per loss if I was breaking a continent bonus, but even then, I still would probably want to try to get at something a little better than a loss for every guy I kill. (Lets face it, one kill for a death is not that good a roll since the attacker rolls more dice) However this would seriously improve complaining about dice since when a person loses a 16 v 9, they can only blame themselves for not using the one-kill-one-lose attack option and playing it safe. In that situation of 16 v 9, I would definately not have used it, but I could only blame myself for the rolls, not dice.

im not really into the idea, i think that one of the exciting/main reasons the site is so fun is the unpredictability of the game.

This suggestion is just silly. One of the few things that was in every boardgame and on every risk-site are the dice.

I mean, feel free to play this at home or make a new site, but it just seems silly to put it as an option.


And even if it was an option, it certainly shouldn't be ranked as actual games.

Snorri1234 wrote:This suggestion is just silly. One of the few things that was in every boardgame and on every risk-site are the dice.

I mean, feel free to play this at home or make a new site, but it just seems silly to put it as an option.


And even if it was an option, it certainly shouldn't be ranked as actual games.

well it obviously does eliminate the "risk" part of CC, and even with no dice, who wins is still heavily dependent on drop...
but it installs more strategy/tactics into the game...

That this gives a fair first turn is simply not true, depending on initial drop. The entire game would be decided on two factors instead of many... Initial drop and first turn. Imagine you have Western Au, New Guinea and China. First turn you can take all of australia AND siam and still have no singles. That's not to mention fortifications, which most likely you could make because you'd merely have to have a territory bordering china. The other player will not be able to come back from a first turn loss like that, because the other person will just be pumping an unstoppable number of armies from AU second turn.

The dice, if the game is played infinately, will Always favor the attacker in situations of > 5v3. With this set up, I don't even need to worry about losing a 4v3, which heavily favors the first turn attacker. With the optional set up, the first turn player gets an even greater advantage, because he has more options available to him. And let's face it, 3v10 is not going to happen, unless you're lucky enough to win the lottery. No one should ever choose to do a 20v30 unless it's a total last resort.

i gotta say im not for it but what the hell do i know-i just think the whole point of risk is having the potential to come back with some lucky rolls when death is staring you in the face, or, as much as it sucks, losing at rediclous odds and being scammed out of points

this should be tested too.. on paper it will look solid, but the whole gameplay of risk revolves around rolling dice, and if you remove the dice, then the entire structure of the game might collapse, and the apocalypse will descend on the earth

PS!

also just thought of this one, it might seem rediculous but run with me here for a bit...

some people start playing these games, and do so with great success
pretty soon we have a whole batch of new high ranked players that are dominant in this game type, maybe on specialty maps or what-have-you.

pretty soon, the rest of the high ranked players that think this idea is foolish are forced to play these games just to get rid of the competitive edge the others are having, and soon reclaim the top of the leaderboard, and then they ease back and start playing REAL risk, not some completely different game (which is what you get if you take the dice away)

but when they return back to real risk, the ones playing no dice games rise back to the top, so again the high ranks are forced to play against them and beat them down to stay at the top

pretty soon, you would see a virtual extinction of dice games from the site, because everyone would have to play them or accept being a cook (which many many players would never do) - then, 5 years from now lack gets rid of all dice games cause they have almost no use, and the birth of a completely new game is formed in which half the players love the game, and half hate it but just play to stay competitive, but eventually they get sick of it and leave to another risk website and, with half his business gone lack goes out of business and has to go to the streets to survive, where he becomes the best thug rapper ever

hehe ok i got a little bit sily at the end there, but im dead serious about that post, seriously

take it to a new website, NOT conquerclub

yeah

do not do this suggestion

it makes no sense and could destroy the site.

kemm

I've done some preliminary mathematical analysis of this suggestion. In a nutshell, I'm a bit worried. It doesn't look balanced at all. People complain about the dice, and that seems to be the main argument for this suggestion.
Well, the dice give you many chances - the drop gives you one.
It looks pretty biased towards the player who goes first IMO. I'll keep looking into it, but I'm not very optimistic that this is going to be a good change

Here's some observations that were not outlined in the original post:

• Arduously boring build games will be more common.
• Choke points, such as Siam/Indo on Classic, or about 50% of the terrs on Caribbean and Philippines will horribly imbalance a map.
• Predicitability will make team games a farce, as the team going first simply needs to target one player to win the game without any reasonable recourse from the other team.
• Starting with a continent such as Australia on Classic or Africa on Doodle will guarantee a win. Not make it highly likely - guarantee.
• Games will go on for much longer and increase server load.
• There will be no less dice threads, there will just be more no-dice threads.
• Maps that have "on-the-edge" starting values (such as 12 terrs each on quads Waterloo, 12 terrs each on 1v1 Australia) will favour the first player/team far too much.
• Bombardment will be vastly different, changing the character of many maps, thereby imbalancing those maps (remember, maps go through a long and analytical process in the forge before they're unleashed).

Yeah, but apart from all that ?


But more seriously you say that "games will go on for much longer" and also that it "looks pretty biased towards the player who goes first" and that it "will make team games a farce, as the team going first simply needs to target one player to win the game" ... ?

Personally I agree with the last two (and most of your other) objections, but I'm confused as to how the first objection can also be true .