[GO] No Dice Games

[BaldAdonis]

If I have 8 v 6 can I just 'attack with 2' to make it 6 v 4? Or do I have to 'attack with 6' to make it 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory?

Not sure why I would want to do this, but could I ?

You'd want to do that when you're attacking a territory which could attack your bonus from outside of your bonus. For example, your 8 are on China, their 6 are on Siam, and you want to protect Australia.

Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.

Like a game of Connect Four. It's not Risk anymore when the outcome is determined.

would you vote against a new map from DiM for example, because they are not like the 'original risk' and you don't like the 'futuristic gameplay' or you just don't feel like playing some kind of variation?

Do you visit the foundry? There was a map (and a joke map ridiculing it) which was entirely luck based. There were 6 territories, and the first player got a bonus of 100. Whoever went first would win, just like in this suggestion. It got voted down, because it's a terrible idea. See the similarities? Just because we have options, doesn't mean we need to allow all options. That's how you make a product inferior.


Fruitcake, why not work on a way to explain to people why the dice act the way that they do? That resolves the problem of dice complaints, and doesn't add a different game to the site.

[Fruitcake]

cicero wrote:

If I have 8 v 6 can I just 'attack with 2' to make it 6 v 4? Or do I have to 'attack with 6' to make it 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory?

Not sure why I would want to do this, but could I ?

Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.

Taking the first point, yes, this is exactly the same as rolling the dice one roll at a time. Each attack is in effect a single roll, so auto would drive you in otherwise the choice is still yours.

To the other, all I can say is trust me, the outcome is never pre ordained. You would have to be able to judge what every other player was going to do in a given situation, impossible. We play this way on the board almost exclusively at home, purely to hone our strategic thought processes. As I have mentioned before, cards can still be played which ensures a frisson of luck, however, the % of luck against strategic skill to arrive at the final outcome decreases dramatically.

hope this helps.

[cicero]

Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.

All I can say is trust me, the outcome is never pre ordained. You would have to be able to judge what every other player was going to do in a given situation, impossible. We play this way on the board almost exclusively at home, purely to hone our strategic thought processes. As I have mentioned before, cards can still be played which ensures a frisson of luck, however, the % of luck against strategic skill to arrive at the final outcome decreases dramatically.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that "trust me" isn't a good argument .... ... seriously, explain why the outcome is not pre-ordained?

I appreciate that the outcome is not always the same, but this I think is because of variations in the drop. I can calculate for a given drop what my best moves are. If you make your best moves too if you have a weaker drop you cannot overtake me.

Even if I make my best moves I cannot make a win if others have a stronger drop. It would seem that a strong drop can only lose if the player makes mistakes and hence games can only be lost by error. Equally an initial drop advantage cannot be overcome unless the player with that advantage makes an error.

And then, setting all that aside, let's say that I see your game is an interesting one. [It strikes me now that perhaps it is a little like chess crossed with checkers/draughts or something similar.] Chess is a complex game, with no luck, but because of all the possibilities it cannot be realistically 'calculated' by most minds (human or otherwise). That's the trouble with thinking aloud, I've nearly convinced myself I like your game now ...

However I think perhaps the real reason it will not be implemented here, and has been rejected so many times in the past, is because it does have such a high skill factor. For a massively multi player site like CC it is important to have a large membership who can all enjoy winning often enough to return. Higher skill games tend to appeal to an elite who master the game and as a consequence new, casual players are unlikely to win so often if at all. Many of these players will not return.

Cicero

[zimmah]

However I think perhaps the real reason it will not be implemented here, and has been rejected so many times in the past, is because it does have such a high skill factor. For a massively multi player site like CC it is important to have a large membership who can all enjoy winning often enough to return. Higher skill games tend to appeal to an elite who master the game and as a consequence new, casual players are unlikely to win so often if at all. Many of these players will not return.

Cicero

they will not have to play it.

[zimmah]

would you vote against a new map from DiM for example, because they are not like the 'original risk' and you don't like the 'futuristic gameplay' or you just don't feel like playing some kind of variation?

Do you visit the foundry? There was a map (and a joke map ridiculing it) which was entirely luck based. There were 6 territories, and the first player got a bonus of 100. Whoever went first would win, just like in this suggestion. It got voted down, because it's a terrible idea. See the similarities? Just because we have options, doesn't mean we need to allow all options. That's how you make a product inferior.


Fruitcake, why not work on a way to explain to people why the dice act the way that they do? That resolves the problem of dice complaints, and doesn't add a different game to the site.

true, however this would not be luck based, chess isn't luck based just because it has no dice, does the starting player always win?

[Fruitcake]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that "trust me" isn't a good argument .... ... seriously, explain why the outcome is not pre-ordained?

The answer I gave is really just that. You would have to be able to judge what every other player was going to do in a given situation, which is impossible.

I appreciate that the outcome is not always the same, but this I think is because of variations in the drop. I can calculate for a given drop what my best moves are. If you make your best moves too if you have a weaker drop you cannot overtake me.
Even if I make my best moves I cannot make a win if others have a stronger drop. It would seem that a strong drop can only lose if the player makes mistakes and hence games can only be lost by error. Equally an initial drop advantage cannot be overcome unless the player with that advantage makes an error.

I sense you are thinking as with the dice game. I see many discussions about it in 2 player games. However, with multi player games there is little or no discussion. The thing is, with this method, the defender can actually get you, in that you have to always ensure you have more in defence than any potential attack. This puts a brake on those quick wipe games where someone gets the best of the drop. After all, we have all played the game where a string of outlying single army terries are counted in our minds…you know the style…(well the enemy is likely to lose a couple on the way etc etc, so by the time they get to the border they might only have 3 or 4 left against my 3) this way you would have to sit and think every move through, especially if you only had chained fortifications.

And then, setting all that aside, let's say that I see your game is an interesting one. [It strikes me now that perhaps it is a little like chess crossed with checkers/draughts or something similar.] Chess is a complex game, with no luck, but because of all the possibilities it cannot be realistically 'calculated' by most minds (human or otherwise). That's the trouble with thinking aloud, I've nearly convinced myself I like your game now

The game grips one, because one is no longer concerned about the ramifications of ‘bad’ dice, but has to start thinking on an almost 3 dimensional strategic way.

However I think perhaps the real reason it will not be implemented here, and has been rejected so many times in the past, is because it does have such a high skill factor. For a massively multi player site like CC it is important to have a large membership who can all enjoy winning often enough to return. Higher skill games tend to appeal to an elite who master the game and as a consequence new, casual players are unlikely to win so often if at all. Many of these players will not return.

Very good point, that is why I am championing it as an option…those who want to enjoy the luck of the dice can still do so.

[BaldAdonis]

[It strikes me now that perhaps it is a little like chess crossed with checkers/draughts or something similar.] Chess is a complex game, with no luck, but because of all the possibilities it cannot be realistically 'calculated' by most minds (human or otherwise).

This game would be much more like checkers than chess. A few basic guidelines would be enough to allow you to make the best moves almost every time, because the pieces and the gameplay are so simple.

A few other threads where this was discussed:
Fruitcake, from a month ago;
Generaln7, from 3 months ago;
coolpsp, from last May;
CreepyUncleAndy, from over a year ago;
Basic summary: it's never been officially rejected; hardly anyone supports it; "why not just play Diplomacy?"; and Risktaker17 makes funny posts.

I think the idea is decent and would definitely use it

Been requested and rejected TONS OF TIMES!

No randomness, no fun. I'd rather play Chess then.

[BaldAdonis]

true, however this would not be luck based, chess isn't luck based just because it has no dice, does the starting player always win?

Chess isn't solved (yet), so I can't say, but the first player does have a big advantage, and in chess you don't have a random starting position. This game doesn't get rid of the luck, it just moves it to the very beginning of the game, when the drop and play order is decided.

Besides, this suggestion is much more simple than chess: there's only one piece and one interaction between pieces. It's more like Connect Four or checkers (which are solved, and end up as first player win or a draw, resp.)

[Risktaker17]

Been rejected more times than anyone can remember!

[BaldAdonis]

Been rejected more times than anyone can remember!

0?

[Fruitcake]

Baldadonis wrote:

It's more like Connect Four or checkers (which are solved, and end up as first player win or a draw, resp.)

Disagree, it is nothing like it. There are far more impondrables with this than the games you mention. Troop movements being just one.

It is impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond. The idea of this is far more strategic. For instance, You have to think not just about this move, but the turn next, the turn after that and so on. Because of this one still makes errors of judgement. One can think something is going to happen, but then the enemy turns and does something completely different, this then changes the whole face of the game and so all one can do is make the call, just as in normal dice driven games cc offers.

I don't wish to seem a bore about this, but judging by the steady voting so far there are quite a few who see this as an option worth going with, for that is all it is...an option.

[insomniacdude]

I would never play it. As has already been said, it's more of a puzzle then a game of skill. Because the luck of the dice are removed, there are now only three elements of luck remaining: cards, drop, and play order. Only one of these has a dynamic effect on the game continuously; that is to say, the drop and play order effect the game from the very beginning, and that's it. In standard games, the cards (usually) and the dice offset the "statistical puzzle"-ness to the game, requiring true human ingenuity. That means that for every scenario there is almost always a singular and clear "good" and "bad" move. Someone said that it wouldn't be long before computer programs are written to take a player's turn in these no dice games.

Even so, surely that shouldn't be enough to turn down another option that, like it or not, would certainly add a new level to the game. My gripes from there are pretty simple:

1) It's just not Risk. It doesn't fall into the product CC is trying to deliver, IMO.
2) Because of that, I feel like the points added into the system from these games isn't fair t the people who earned their points in more CC-like games.

[Tieryn]

Yeah, I agree fruitcake, as an option, I'd find in interesting...

I'd really want the games that are no-dice to have a different coloured background screen tho, so I'm sure which type I'm playing. I too often forget it's chained or adjacent forts... no-dice would throw me unless it was -REAL- easy to know which game was which.

My concern is bigger maps, such as the battle of actium, where you start with heaps of armies, and in order to overcome this, I suggest something like staggered deploys.. In order to overcome the major benefits of going first, the first player only gets 3 deploys... in multi player games, this would step up by 1 deploy each person, 1st-3, 2nd-4, 3rd-5, 4th-6, until you reached standard deployments, and then be ineffectual afterwards.. It's just something that would help reduce that impact of first play, which with 8 beginning deploys, would be hugely impacting in a no-dice game... Perhaps this even for the first 1-2-3 rounds or so in 2 player, again rising by one each time, until standard level is found.

Thoughts?

[BaldAdonis]

-It is impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond.
-The idea of this is far more strategic.
-You have to think not just about this move, but the turn next, the turn after that and so on.
-Because of this one still makes errors of judgement.
-One can think something is going to happen, but then the enemy turns and does something completely different, this then changes the whole face of the game

Explain again which of those does not describe checkers or Connect Four.

I made the analogy because all three fall under the domain of combinatorial game theory, so you can apply the same decision structures to any of them. Because it can be shown that the first player can, by taking 3 territories, create an advantage (unless someone drops a bonus, then the game depends on the starting position), the first player should win, as long as they don't make any mistakes.

Maybe you just play against bad players who make illogical moves, so the games don't SEEM to be determined... but they are. At any given time, there is a best move to make (because you can only put your deployment in a finite number of places and make a finite set of attacks to take adjacent territories, so the one which leaves you in the best position is the best move [Risk doesn't fall victim to this, because the attacks are probabilistic, you only know with certain odds which move is best]), so it's not impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond if you assume they will make their best move. If they don't make their best move, then that's even better, because they're in a worse position than they could be.

Let's play a game right now. Since you don't need dice, the entire game can be done by writing down your moves, once you know the starting position. You could play by mail! (like Diplomacy, but with fewer rules)

[nelo]

i agree with fruitcake is an option of a game and just play who wants you getmy vote

[yeti_c]

-It is impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond.
-The idea of this is far more strategic.
-You have to think not just about this move, but the turn next, the turn after that and so on.
-Because of this one still makes errors of judgement.
-One can think something is going to happen, but then the enemy turns and does something completely different, this then changes the whole face of the game

Explain again which of those does not describe checkers or Connect Four.

I made the analogy because all three fall under the domain of combinatorial game theory, so you can apply the same decision structures to any of them. Because it can be shown that the first player can, by taking 3 territories, create an advantage (unless someone drops a bonus, then the game depends on the starting position), the first player should win, as long as they don't make any mistakes.

Maybe you just play against bad players who make illogical moves, so the games don't SEEM to be determined... but they are. At any given time, there is a best move to make (because you can only put your deployment in a finite number of places and make a finite set of attacks to take adjacent territories, so the one which leaves you in the best position is the best move [Risk doesn't fall victim to this, because the attacks are probabilistic, you only know with certain odds which move is best]), so it's not impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond if you assume they will make their best move. If they don't make their best move, then that's even better, because they're in a worse position than they could be.

Let's play a game right now. Since you don't need dice, the entire game can be done by writing down your moves, once you know the starting position. You could play by mail! (like Diplomacy, but with fewer rules)

You are correct - if Risk was a 2 player game...

Perhaps this option shouldn't be available for 2 player games?

C.

[Phantom7]

I am not as good as Fruit at putting a point of view forwards, but I will just say.

I cannot see any reason not to have a no dice option, I have played just about all types and like them. I know loads of people who play this way. Ive never had a problem with any way of playing this game, it is all good fun.

You have my support fruit on this, a great idea. , and a great thread, some serious stuff without the usual stuff that happens.

[HayesA]

You got my vote, Fruitcake buddy. I'm bloody sick of losing the game due to omigawd dice rolls. I don't see how dice are the "heart" of the game. I thought it was Risk/Strategy? This would definitely make me want to maybe buy premium, and use Fog of War for all my games.

[Kemmler]

Definitely needs tweaking then it might be good... with neutrals it would suck

[Fruitcake]

Risktaker17 wrote

Been rejected more times than anyone can remember!

Interesting. I was not led to believe this.

I was asked to see what the response would be like to a discussion and a poll.

Perhaps you mean, it has previously died a death due to not being supported. Strangely the voting seems, so far to be quite reasonable.

[Fruitcake]

Kemmler wrote

Definitely needs tweaking then it might be good... with neutrals it would suck

In what way Kemmler? Seriously. I am interested in why.

[AXE00026]

TO view an existing military strategy game, based on movements,negotiations and no dice.... locate the board game "diplomacy"....
A worthy challenge for all game players and a sound basis for an online game.

[billval3]

Let's not forget that just because there are dice involved, that does not make Risk a game of chance. It takes a lot of strategic skill to plan a win despite the possibility of having bad dice.

I don't like the concept that 1 army always defeats 1 army because that's not at all like real life. It just seems like you're simplifying the game too much by making that kind of a rule.

[dilbertofaus]

I'm with you Fruitcake. Adds a different element to the game, and makes the game purely strategic. I think this would give players the option of "the gamble of the die" or a "pure strategy" game.

I personally enjoy the luck of the roll due to the unknown element, but the use of cards as you say would add this option to the pure strategy game.

Like your thinking. Got my vote.

[insomniacdude]

Adds a different element to the game, and makes the game purely strategic.

...no it doesn't. It just means the variables of luck have an even bigger impact than before: drop, play order, and (if you're playing with them) cards.