http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=485291#gmtop
Killa Noah and his Jesus Dice
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
-
iAnonymous
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:17 pm
- Location: Lower Mainland, BC
Sparqs wrote:Yowza! It's not about the dice - it's about the crazy freestyle teamwork action! Very impressive effort.
It's also a lesson to me not to play any freestyle team games - at least not against the big brass.
Well I'm sure the teamwork played a large part in it, but any team that can conquer 90% of their opponents on their first turn has to have some kind of miracle dice regardless.
I'm new to this site (but not new to gaming), and I have even less experience with team play, but I'm really not sure they needed miracle dice. I wish there were a log of attack rolls we could view.
They had 3 players go before their opponents started, and it was unlimited fortification. One player made one attack with full attacker's advantage (3 dice) then fortified the 2nd. 2nd player used those armies plus deployment to make full-advantage attacks. Then 1 and 2 fortified Killa Noah as he attacked, who rampaged with full advantage.
Seems to me that Killa Noah didn't get much bad luck, but he didn't need exceptionally good luck to ride the fat side of the odds to victory. Of course, I wasn't there and yosevuk was. Yosevuk, were the Jesus Dice spectacular or were they merely good, combined with tactics?
They had 3 players go before their opponents started, and it was unlimited fortification. One player made one attack with full attacker's advantage (3 dice) then fortified the 2nd. 2nd player used those armies plus deployment to make full-advantage attacks. Then 1 and 2 fortified Killa Noah as he attacked, who rampaged with full advantage.
Seems to me that Killa Noah didn't get much bad luck, but he didn't need exceptionally good luck to ride the fat side of the odds to victory. Of course, I wasn't there and yosevuk was. Yosevuk, were the Jesus Dice spectacular or were they merely good, combined with tactics?
-
Velvecarrots
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:40 pm
The "attacker advantage" isn't a huge advantage, so yes, it was a lot of luck. Nice finish in round 2. I also have a finished game in round 2 on the US somewhere, that was 4 player dubs, where we both had god like dice.
This game was once fun, but the necessity to log in every day finally took its toll on me.
Best Score: 4660 (11/20/10)
Best Rank: 1 (8/2/13)
Best Score: 4660 (11/20/10)
Best Rank: 1 (8/2/13)
Velvecarrots wrote:The "attacker advantage" isn't a huge advantage, so yes, it was a lot of luck.
This may be the case, but I've yet to see a convincing argument. I looked at Killa Noah's history and it seems they've only recently started this freestyle triples tactic, with increasing success. I haven't looked at examples of this tactic by other teams.
Note that there is an advantage to triples vs doubes - more armies at deployment and the same number of starting armies get concentrated on fewer territories (doubles gets you 10 stacks of 5.5 in the example below), and no neutrals.
I tried to run the numbers to actually model this situation, but the math is beyond me. But try this thought experiment:
You are on a board with 42 territories, 2 teams of 3 = 7 territories per player.
Your team gains 9 armies at deployment.
Your allies fortify all of their armies onto you.
Each of your territories has sucked up 2 armies from each ally, plus 1 from deployment = 8 armies each.
Each 8-stack is responsible for taking out 3 enemy 3-stacks.
Assuming no bad luck, how far do you expect to get?
The dice odds tables for 3v2 suggest it should cost roughly 1.5 armies to take out a 3-stack. Add 1 to occupy the territory. Your 8-stack vs 3 enemy 3-stacks is a series of:
8 v 3
5.5 v 3
3 v 3
3v3 is garbage of course, but there are some fudge-factors left: 2 armies leftover from deployment. Concentrating armies effectively provides you with some stacks larger than 8 - they last longer before losing advantage. Not every enemy must be killed (3 enemy territories left at the end of round 1 in #485291).
Plus they fortified as they went. So instead of leaving behind spent 2- and 3-stacks, they were able to re-energize them and keep the advantage up.
Again, I'm not saying there wasn't good luck involved - I'm just not yet convinced that there was spectacular luck involved.
Sparqs wrote:Velvecarrots wrote:The "attacker advantage" isn't a huge advantage, so yes, it was a lot of luck.
This may be the case, but I've yet to see a convincing argument. I looked at Killa Noah's history and it seems they've only recently started this freestyle triples tactic, with increasing success. I haven't looked at examples of this tactic by other teams.
Note that there is an advantage to triples vs doubes - more armies at deployment and the same number of starting armies get concentrated on fewer territories (doubles gets you 10 stacks of 5.5 in the example below), and no neutrals.
I tried to run the numbers to actually model this situation, but the math is beyond me. But try this thought experiment:
You are on a board with 42 territories, 2 teams of 3 = 7 territories per player.
Your team gains 9 armies at deployment.
Your allies fortify all of their armies onto you.
Each of your territories has sucked up 2 armies from each ally, plus 1 from deployment = 8 armies each.
Each 8-stack is responsible for taking out 3 enemy 3-stacks.
Assuming no bad luck, how far do you expect to get?
The dice odds tables for 3v2 suggest it should cost roughly 1.5 armies to take out a 3-stack. Add 1 to occupy the territory. Your 8-stack vs 3 enemy 3-stacks is a series of:
8 v 3
5.5 v 3
3 v 3
3v3 is garbage of course, but there are some fudge-factors left: 2 armies leftover from deployment. Concentrating armies effectively provides you with some stacks larger than 8 - they last longer before losing advantage. Not every enemy must be killed (3 enemy territories left at the end of round 1 in #485291).
Plus they fortified as they went. So instead of leaving behind spent 2- and 3-stacks, they were able to re-energize them and keep the advantage up.
Again, I'm not saying there wasn't good luck involved - I'm just not yet convinced that there was spectacular luck involved.
I don't disagree with that, I just can't recall ever having or witnessing so many good rolls in a row. Would a 1 rounder be considered spectacular luck
? I wonder if that's been done...
Oh, and would you mind posting # of other 2 rounder Velvecarrots?
