Moderator: Community Team
GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order
In a 2 player game, if the first player gets 4 to start, then unless the map is so skewed that both players are directly opposite, he'll be able to find four territories to take with no chance of losing them the next round. Many places you wouldn't even need to deploy: if you have two territories next to one, you'll take it. Try applying this to any game you've just started, and see how many you can take over. It'll be a lot more than you could take with dice.
Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.
Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.
what about in games like 2.1 or maps where players get 5+ men, they could place a 2, a 2 and a 1 and guarantie that they take 2 areas for sure, this cuts their opponent down to 4 guys per round (an even bigger effect in world 2.1)
Fruitcake wrote:Not quite, and the first player could never take more than 2 terries....
start=3 per terry, so the first player places 4 armies on one terry. Same player takes terry 1, loses 3 in attack, has to leave one behind, so moves 3 in. this now means just 4 on the next attacking terry against 3, so has to use armies from another surrounding terry to reduce to 2 before attacking, then takes. great, but player then has 3 terries with just 1 army on each.
a simple answer: NO
the dice are the heart of the game, it wouldn't be fun anymore if there wasn't a sort of risk to it, and what would you do in cases like 11 vs 10, i won a roll like this without losing any armies with you solution it would have resulted in losing all my armies. but what about the crazy attack: 20 vs 33? 5 vs 9?
If this ever gets implemented (which it won't, it's been suggested and rejected because it doesn't make sense), sign me up for a hundred games against you. You're forgetting that you start with more than one territory, so there are support troops scattered around the map. It would be very unlikely to come up with a drop where you CAN'T take 3 territories and not leave any singles exposed.
Mr Unbeatable wrote:I love the idea as i think the dice play too much of a role in deciding the winner of a game. Got my support.
owenshooter wrote:i want a poll, damnit!!! where is the poll!! a guy as clever as you are, and you can't figure out how to add a poll?!! get with it fruity!!!-0
Fruitcake wrote:have you played a no dice game?
Audax wrote:Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.
Apart from the obviously silly number which has nothing positive, I fail to undertstand hwo you can say this. How many threads appear on this forum about the dice????????
Users browsing this forum: No registered users