[GO] No Dice Games

[PaperPlunger]

[MOD EDIT: The reason this is REJECTED is the possibility of unbreakable stalemates. See here, here and here. Feel free to continue the discussion here, but unless these difficulties can be overcome, this will not be implemented. If you see a thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. -- agentcom]

Dragonfly told me that he thought the dice rolls should always lose one each. Meaning there would be no rolls. If / when you hit attack, you always lose one army, and the defender always loses one army. Basically saying, if you have less armies than the territory you would like to conquer, you can't get it.

What do you folks think? I think it's reallllly stupid, but that's just my opinion. He also says it would incorporate more strategy into the game, and it would solve all the dice dilemmas.

Gimme your opinion. Which he will read.

Dragonfly's edit----


DF: "I know it's not traditional risk, but maybe it could be a game option... or something. Besides this whole site isn't exactly traditional risk roflrofl "

2nd edit---

Basically saying, if you have less armies than the territory you would like to conquer, you can't get it.

DF: "If you have more armies than the select enemy territory, you will ALWAYS get it"

]

[HighBorn]

ok... Im just gonna leave it at that...

[Herakilla]

this would mean very slow games until some1 gets an advantage then its one way from there. it either does nothing or reduces strategy since you cant do sneak attacks cuz it will be easier to figure out what other people want and what to do to stop it. also this would be affected by whos has the faster browser in freestyle (i know that is true for now but i mean moreso than now). my guess is that most experienced players wont want it since it requires a complete overhaul of tactics and they like their points where they are.

this is creative ill say that since your going where no1 else has dared.... into changing how attacking works.

i may sound mean but im having a shit day. my sis got in an accident and i dunno what happened as of this time and work was hell today.

[wacicha]

i guess if i were having nothing but bad rolls this could be an option. But on numerous occasions i go against a bigger stack and win. something closer to like real life just because you have the biggest army does not mean you are gonna win.

[Jota]

I could see this as an option on the Start A Game page. Not a popular one, admittedly.

[kingwaffles]

No....

this has been brought up before(similar idea anyways) and shot down. It takes away the whole Risk idea of the game....

[dragonfly]

you guys are crazy. i think its a great idea. hoorah to that guy who voted yes.

[alster]

That would, in effect, turn the risk copy cat game into a diplomacy copy cat wanna be game.

In diplomacy you're limited to one army per territory and it works with the rule that 2 (attackers) beats 1 (defender). Diplomacy is a great game, but to remove the dice concept here, well. Dunno. Maybe as a game setting option though if people want to play it that way.

It would create games were you would induce more alliance building perhaps. But still. Dunno. It would be weird to have the diplomacy attack rules somewhat modified into the risk game.

[dragonfly]

by the way, kingwaffles, we have the exact same score. im pretty pumped about that.

[PaperPlunger]

by the way, kingwaffles, we have the exact same score. im pretty pumped about that.

that's irrelevant.

[alster]

by the way, kingwaffles, we have the exact same score. im pretty pumped about that.

that's irrelevant.

No shit. How did you come to that conclusion Sherlock?

*leaning down and hugging the cute animal*

[Scorba]

*leaning down and hugging the cute animal*

You do realise that PP has stuck a firework up the cute animal's backside? Watch as the flames shoot out and it leaps forward shouting "Grue!" in pain and surprise. Everytime I see it I think to myself "that PaperPlunger's a right cruel bastard".

By the way, Dragonfly's idea sucks.

[PaperPlunger]

*leaning down and hugging the cute animal*

You do realise that PP has stuck a firework up the cute animal's backside? Watch as the flames shoot out and it leaps forward shouting "Grue!" in pain and surprise. Everytime I see it I think to myself "that PaperPlunger's a right cruel bastard".

By the way, Dragonfly's idea sucks.

I just woke up.... that post was hilarious.

[CreepyUncleAndy]

A few years ago, my friends (who are avid RISK players) got tired of rolling dice, and started playing RISK a new way:

When invading another territory, armies mutually annihilate each other at the ratio of 1:1. In other words, if you have 1 army guarding Kamchatka, I must have at least 3 armies in Alaska in order to take it (from across the Bering Straight) -- 1 army to annihilate (and be annihilated by) your 1 occupying army, 1 army to invade and occupy Kamchatka, and 1 army to remain behind in Alaska.

Perhaps this can be incorporated as a game option on Conquer Club?

Possibly the Rate of Attrition could be adjusted from 1:1 to x:y (ratios could favor the attacker, the defender, or neither)....

(And, possibly, maps could be created that change the attrition ratio from 1:1 to, say, 3:2 or 1:2 in certain territories, but one thing at a time.)

[CreepyUncleAndy]

And, to go even more nuts, possibly attrition rates can vary from border to border -- i.e., you might get slaughtered attacking Western Europe from Britain (3:1) but invading Western Europe from Central Europe might be easier (2:3). But this, of course, introduces a whole new set of classes and objects and all kinds of coding issues that the game afaik does not (yet) allow for, not to mention fundamentally changing the substance of the game....

[sully800]

It takes away the whole "risk" aspect of the game, and would change it into something completely different.

However I would play it now and then for fun, because sometimes it is nice to eliminate as much luck as possible.

What would you do though while attacking against a single army? If you still lose 1:1 in that situation it seems like there is a problem, because normally you would win those attacks much more often than you would lose them.

Anyway, I doubt it would be implemented but I think it would be at least slightly interesting.

[gulio]

I can just see someone holding AUstralia and putting 5 onto siam each turn for.. um.... 40 turns?... would be fun though.

[joeyjordison]

basically if u don't get gd placement then u r dead. everyone starts with the same armies so everyone will kill each other the same amount. this would be true until someone flucily got a bonus at which point they would automatically win unless there was an alliance made against them or a series of attacks by separate players.
i get annoyed by dodgy dice. today for example i lost 10 armies straight in one game. didn't even kill 1 army. next game i go to take a turn and lose 4 armies straight, don't make a single kill. next game i get perfect dice and take every territory i attack without a casualty! took an entire continent from a guy!
this is just the way the dice r and risk wouldn't b risk without dice

[gulio]

I could see using the cards for something - IE if you held E.Austrailia and you were attackign E.Australia you could get a "One time bonus" of autokilling 1 unit per turn...

[spiesr]

It would be impossipible to do anything at the start.

[SirSebstar]

not impossible. you would just need more then 1 country to border the country you are trying to invade.
oh and you get a minimum of 3 troops to begin with. so basicly, you can attack ony 1 country and win.!

[CreepyUncleAndy]

Actually, if there are 3 armies on a territory, you would have to attack it 3 armies of your own to wipe out the 3 defending armies, then send in a 4th army to occupy (and leave at least 1 army behind in each territory you attack from).

At the beginning of the game, each territory has 3 armies on it. So, if you were lucky enough to occupy an enemy territory's two neighboring territories, you would be able to send 2 armies from each of two territories (leaving 1 behind in each) for a total of 4 attacking armies to annihilate your enemy's 3 armies (leaving 1 of your armies alive to occupy the conquered territory).

[Lupo]

Honestly i think it would be much more Risk minded to play with Italian Risk rules, where you could both attack both defend with 3 dice!

In this way the ratio between armies lost from attacker and the ones from defender would be, in average, around 2:1 instead of 1:1.

I could tell you that in this way Risk game would be more tactical and I would say even more exiting, since this would change complitely the game in a better one, at least in my opinion!

So, my suggestion would be to give the option to choose between:

International Risk rules (2 dice defending)

and Italian Risk rules (3 dice defending)

[gavin_sidhu]

posted twice.

[gavin_sidhu]

So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets sometimes).