Every time after I complain my rolls improve. So complain, but that doesnt seem fair or random to me.

Win some lose some....

Im addicted to RISK, and the maps here are awesome. I think an idea that should be embraced is that this game doesnt have to be played only on maps. You could play on a paint by number picture if you really wanted too.

Heres the scenario.

Im on the brink of destruction, but my opponent has worn himself down. Luckily I hold 2 uranium processing plants and a launch code. I get seven men to begin my turn, I have one man left in the USSR to launch an attack from, and maybe if I succeed and take a bunker MAYBE, I ...

12 vs 3

I lose 11 and my opponents 3 remain intact.

The dice are just fine....

rollercoaster wheeeeee!!!

dice

20 to 3, occupied territory with 10. These things happen every second roll.

Placed 20 armies on 1 territory to attack a string of 11 adjacent armies. 4 defenders remain; 19 armies for 7 is a bad exchange rate. Based on actual odds, I should have succeeded with 11 armies.

There shouldnt be an edge for paying players, but then you also shouldnt lose in a 3 on 1 attack over half the time either.

Anyone notice in a 3 on 3 attack, the attacker loses 2 armies over 75%+ of the time. At home I simply tested those odds myself and found that 50% resulted in attacker and defender losing 1 army each, 30% resulted in attacker losing 2 armies, and 20% resulted in defender losing both.

This has strong ...

I dont care what anyone says, the rolls are not right. Invest in a real randomizer. Attacker is supposed to win 6 to 5, not lose 3 to 1.

I know there must have been a thousand complaints about this. Maybe Im just whining because I lost 17 men to 2.

I want to suggest that when starting games, members should be able to set minimum and maximum limits for rank that other members must meet to join.

EXAMPLE:

Set Rank Limit:
Minimum Rank: Corporal 1st Class
Maximum Rank: Captain

Therefore to join this game you must at least be a Corporal 1st ...