[GO] No Dice Games

[Opera Man FL]

Life always has the elements we DO NOT control. Leave the dice in.

[Robinette]

If Life had a "No-Dice" option, The Alamo would never have happened :-/

mnnnn... no, the Texan's would have lost the alamo either way..



in CC life, it happened something like this...

Santa Anna had 24 troops (each representing 100 men) and attacked a lightly defended Alamo with just 2 troops (representing 200 men).

Santa Anna's 1st roll was 5,4,1 vs 6,4... Lost 2 (two hundred)
2nd roll was 6,3,2 vs 6,3... Lost 2 more
3rd roll was 4,1,1, vs 3,1... each lost 1
4th roll was 5,5,4 vs 5... Santa Anna lost another, now 18 v 1
and the final roll, 6,4,2 vs 2 ended the battle..

Santa Anna claimed the victory and said it "was but a small affair"

[Joodoo]

2 vs 1 ---> attacker loses 1, defender loses 1, 3vs2, attacker loses 2, defender loses 2, etc etc!
advance how many troops ---> a half?!
lol

The first post suggests that an attack can only be initiated if the attacker's territory has at least two more armies than the defender's territory. Otherwise, no assaults can be made.

[Mr_Adams]

2 vs 1 ---> attacker loses 1, defender loses 1, 3vs2, attacker loses 2, defender loses 2, etc etc!
advance how many troops ---> a half?!
lol

The first post suggests that an attack can only be initiated if the attacker's territory has at least two more armies than the defender's territory. Otherwise, no assaults can be made.

There would need to be a fractional trade system. If you want to weaken, but not kill, an opponent, you should be able to.

[Frogmanx82]

So is this just a dead issue or is there any consideration for this option from anyone running this site? We have no cards options, I think no dice would be very popular. You would just put up the number of armies you want to attack with and the same number comes off the defender. You need 2 more than the defender to be able to take them out. Bombardment costs 1 army to remove 1 defender. All you need is one more than the defender to turn it neutral.

[TheForgivenOne]

So is this just a dead issue or is there any consideration for this option from anyone running this site? We have no cards options, I think no dice would be very popular. You would just put up the number of armies you want to attack with and the same number comes off the defender. You need 2 more than the defender to be able to take them out. Bombardment costs 1 army to remove 1 defender. All you need is one more than the defender to turn it neutral.

The webmaster is basically the ONLY one doing any kind of updates/fixes to the site (Besides blakebowling). You do know how hard it is to juggle his real life (Which happens to be a bit busy), with one on here? Don't expect updates to come pumping into the site until he can find a full time Web Developer.

I personally think there are better options than this one too. I've never supported this suggestion.

[Tennisie]

Seems to be a mexican standoff with no clear majority opinion, so here's a compromise: add the following selection to the Start A Game form:

"Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Roll Per Army" (Axis and Allies system). The current method of comparing the highest dice, next highest dice, etc. could still be used to determine how many armies the attacker and defender lose. Altneratively, the dice numbers could be added and the highest number wins, removing only one army from the loser.

With this option, there will still be the element of lucky dice but the "streakiness" would be reduced.

[SirSebstar]

Seems to be a mexican standoff with no clear majority opinion, so here's a compromise: add the following selection to the Start A Game form:

"Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Roll Per Army" (Axis and Allies system). The current method of comparing the highest dice, next highest dice, etc. could still be used to determine how many armies the attacker and defender lose. Altneratively, the dice numbers could be added and the highest number wins, removing only one army from the loser.

With this option, there will still be the element of lucky dice but the "streakiness" would be reduced.

huh?

[Frogmanx82]

Seems to be a mexican standoff with no clear majority opinion, so here's a compromise: add the following selection to the Start A Game form:

"Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Roll Per Army" (Axis and Allies system). The current method of comparing the highest dice, next highest dice, etc. could still be used to determine how many armies the attacker and defender lose. Altneratively, the dice numbers could be added and the highest number wins, removing only one army from the loser.

With this option, there will still be the element of lucky dice but the "streakiness" would be reduced.

huh?

I can pretty well see that changing the dice won't happen. Its either no dice or what we have. I just wonder if the people that are against no dice have ever tried playing Risk without dice.

[SirSebstar]

yes, and still this option is not going to make it.

[Frogmanx82]

That appears to be the last word on the subject. I have nothing else constructive to add.

[Tennisie]

Seems to be a mexican standoff with no clear majority opinion, so here's a compromise: add the following selection to the Start A Game form:

"Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Roll Per Army" (Axis and Allies system). The current method of comparing the highest dice, next highest dice, etc. could still be used to determine how many armies the attacker and defender lose. Altneratively, the dice numbers could be added and the highest number wins, removing only one army from the loser.

With this option, there will still be the element of lucky dice but the "streakiness" would be reduced.

huh?

I can pretty well see that changing the dice won't happen. Its either no dice or what we have. I just wonder if the people that are against no dice have ever tried playing Risk without dice.

I prefer freedom of choice, so I suggest three options for the "Intensity Cubes" selection: classic, no cubes, one cube per army. Since they are OPTIONS, nobody is forced to use any particular one.

[jammyjames]

Seems to be a mexican standoff with no clear majority opinion, so here's a compromise: add the following selection to the Start A Game form:

"Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Roll Per Army" (Axis and Allies system). The current method of comparing the highest dice, next highest dice, etc. could still be used to determine how many armies the attacker and defender lose. Altneratively, the dice numbers could be added and the highest number wins, removing only one army from the loser.

With this option, there will still be the element of lucky dice but the "streakiness" would be reduced.

huh?

I can pretty well see that changing the dice won't happen. Its either no dice or what we have. I just wonder if the people that are against no dice have ever tried playing Risk without dice.

Funny this game isn't called "Risk". And since when in risk do you play freestyle, and nuclear spoils?

Great addition that should be implemented.. i personally cant fucking stand the dice on this site, and as a paying customer the fact alone makes me unwilling to buy premium again.. I'm fed up with the bullshit that they bring, with a no dice option this game would be so much better, and actually rely on strategy! When the bullshit that is the CC dice get involved strategy only gets you so far..

[T21b]

Obviously in a 2 player game the first to play wins (if bonus possibilities not considered).
Start with 1 territory each, clearly 6 v 3 ends the game,
similarly a parallel deployment start, 9 v 6 ends the game;
Increasing the number of territories, or the number of starting deployment units, simply postpones that result.
Cheers

[Extreme Ways]

What about fs then?

/inb4 discussions again here -_-

[Geger]

... plus unlimited reinforcements

[rokus35]

Does anybody hate it when your opponent gets a lucky win?
Does anybody hate it when you get an unlucky loss?

Well, what if there was another game option. This option would allow little to no luck to be in the game. This new option would include the following

-no dice
-colorless cards

The way this works is simple. If a player attacks he loses an army an the defender also loses an army.

Example 1-attacker's armies is 29-the defending region has 20-the attacker would defeat the region with 9 armies left. 29-20=9

Example 2- the attacker has 3 armies and the defender has 1 army. The attacker defeats the one army with 2 armies left. one army is automatically advanced and both regions have one army. 3-1=2


The cards would have no color to them. To get a card you have to attack a region on you turn as always.The cards have region names and still deploy 2 bonus armies to regions occupied. To turn in a set you have to turn in 3 cards as always.

In flat rate, if a set of 3 is turned in when the player only has 3 cards, the player will receive 4 armies and +2 to owned regions.

If a player turns in a set of 3 when he has 4 cards the player would receive 6 armies and +2 to owned regions.

If a player has five cards when he turns in a set of 3 he receives 8 armies. Notice this does not mean he turns in five cards.
3 cards-4
4 cards-6
5 cards-8
6 cards-10
7 cards-12

This would also make it better to wipe out people in flat rate games.

Escalating stays the same except for a set can always be turned in with at least 3 cards before your turn.
Same with nuclear.

Leave your comments,questions,and feedback.

[anonymus]

so its startegy + a little bit of luck you suggest? (if you hold 3 of your colourless cards you still get 6 troops more than if you hold none of them)
also wouldnt round 1 be automatic winner in many cases? (you simply deploy 1 troop on 3 different 3stack where you can hit opponents 3stacks and you have killed 9 troops with a deploy of 3)

i like the spirit but i think its back to drawing-board..

/

[Forza AZ]

also wouldnt round 1 be automatic winner in many cases? (you simply deploy 1 troop on 3 different 3stack where you can hit opponents 3stacks and you have killed 9 troops with a deploy of 3)

i like the spirit but i think its back to drawing-board..

/

You can't win a 4 vs 3 in this idea, since you end up with 1 vs 0, and then you have no army to advance. So you always need at least 2 more in attacking.

[rokus35]

Yeah you would need 5 to beat 3.

[D00MandD3A7H]

Concise description:

An option of "dice"(not a dice anymore) that are fixed.

Specifics/Details:

Like playing checkers or chess?
When attacking, the armies from both sides are lost at a constant and even rate.
Example: 10 armies against 5 = 5 left. The player can then attack again another 5 and both armies will stand at 1 each.


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
A new type of strategy in the maps and games. No one can complain about the dice being random or favoring other players.

[D00MandD3A7H]

By the way, I am not complaining, just suggesting. Thanks for any inputs!

[Geger]

inb4 merged with viewtopic.php?f=535&t=130272

[Criticalwinner]

This has been already been brought up countless times before..... It's not going to happen.

[agentcom]

Eh, don't think this is worth pursuing. I wouldn't want to play this type of game. The dice are part of the game. Don't like it? Find another game. There are countless other suggestions I'd rather see implemented.