Game mechanic

[snoop.daniels]

Is it just me or does the defender have a highly exaggerated advantage? During two separate turns in two separate games I lost 5 armies while attacking a territory with a single army defending. In the second turn, I lost a total of 11 armies while trying to conquer a single territory with 3 armies and still failed to conquer it!! I understand that the defender has a statistical advantage, but this is well outside the margin of error. I've never seen rolls this ridiculous while playing a game of Risk with real dice.

[sailorseal]

"Legally" the defender has no advantage but it seems to be a general consensus that s/he does

[God Emperor Q]

Actually, sailorseal, the defender does have the advantage of winning a broken tie, giving the defender the advantage in a 2v2 or a 1v1 and the attacker a slight advatage in a 3v2 or a 2v1 (talking in terms of dice thrown).

Q

[oVo]

I've witnessed plenty of absurd dice sequences and gotten my butt seriously whalloped by single defenders.
The odds can also be a bit misleading because the defender wins all ties and with these "random numbers" it seems that winning all ties throws a wrench into the domination equation.

Recently I had 22 armies (that I thought were ready to rock) and they only managed to conquer 4 single defended territories. Shit happens So you really need the numbers in your favor and a bit of luck to go with them.

[owenshooter]

"Legally" the defender has no advantage but it seems to be a general consensus that s/he does

where is this general consensus sailor? once again, flat out wrong... sigh...-0

[pinkflaminko]

But the dice are done at random, so keeping track of your rolls and then recording your results on the forums doesnt mean anything. Sorry to be so harsh.

[Woodruff]

"Legally" the defender has no advantage but it seems to be a general consensus that s/he does

I've seen absolutely no such "general consensus" and in fact, I would say that it's simply not true at all. The attacker certainly has the advantage unless the attacker is making what are widely regarded as moron-attacks.

Good heavens, do you just pull ALL of your information straight out of your ass or what?

[Joodoo]

I think when the attacker has at least the same amount of troops as the defender, the attacker has a slight advantage

[Rocketry]

The attacker has the advantage when its like 10 v 10 or 3 v 3 becuase the attacker has three dice. The more troops there are (so 1000 v 1000 rather than 10 v 10) the less the uncertainty is.

Rocket.

[xelabale]

The attacker has the advantage when its like 10 v 10 or 3 v 3 becuase the attacker has three dice. The more troops there are (so 1000 v 1000 rather than 10 v 10) the less the uncertainty is.

Rocket.

4v3 but otherwise as above:
The attacker has a statistical advantage if s/he rolls 3 dice. It is slight, however. The bigger the number on each side, the closer to the statistical value any attack is likely to be. But probability's a b$stard... See the previous 100 threads on this topic for drawn out statistical analysis.

[Rocketry]

The attacker has the advantage when its like 10 v 10 or 3 v 3 becuase the attacker has three dice. The more troops there are (so 1000 v 1000 rather than 10 v 10) the less the uncertainty is.

Rocket.

4v3 but otherwise as above:
The attacker has a statistical advantage if s/he rolls 3 dice. It is slight, however. The bigger the number on each side, the closer to the statistical value any attack is likely to be. But probability's a b$stard... See the previous 100 threads on this topic for drawn out statistical analysis.

Ok so bad example from me - 3 v 3 means the attacker attacks with two dice (one guy always gets left behind) so 4 v 4 would have been a better example? Is that right?

Rocket.

[xelabale]

There's a theoretical advantage in 4v4. However, if you lose 1 army you are down to 2 dice, me no likey. 4v4 is therefore not a great bet in my opinion. 40v40 the advantage is more likely to materialise, 400v400 even more so. It's a function of how probability works and sample size etc.

[Timminz]

If both have the same number, the odds get better as the stacks get larger. The attacker has less than 50% chance of winning up until 12v12.

1v1 = 0%
2v2 = 10.6%
3v3 = 20.6%
6v6 = 39.7%
9v9 = 46.4%
12v12 = 50.7%
20v20 = 57.7%
50v50 = 70.6%

THIS will tell you the odds of any attack. Don't forget to subract 1 from the attacking force, since you always have to leave 1 behind.

[Joodoo]

If both have the same number, the odds get better as the stacks get larger. The attacker has less than 50% chance of winning up until 12v12.

1v1 = 0%
2v2 = 10.6%
3v3 = 20.6%
6v6 = 39.7%
9v9 = 46.4%
12v12 = 50.7%
20v20 = 57.7%
50v50 = 70.6%

THIS will tell you the odds of any attack. Don't forget to subract 1 from the attacking force, since you always have to leave 1 behind.

thanks Timminz

[Rocketry]

If both have the same number, the odds get better as the stacks get larger. The attacker has less than 50% chance of winning up until 12v12.

1v1 = 0%
2v2 = 10.6%
3v3 = 20.6%
6v6 = 39.7%
9v9 = 46.4%
12v12 = 50.7%
20v20 = 57.7%
50v50 = 70.6%

THIS will tell you the odds of any attack. Don't forget to subract 1 from the attacking force, since you always have to leave 1 behind.

thanks Timminz

Numbers prove everything....

[MrBenn]

Numbers prove everything....

...Except the things that have been proven to be unprovable...

[Rocketry]

Numbers prove everything....

...Except the things that have been proven to be unprovable...

Err... but.. well... umm... i... - pffft whatever.

Rocket.

[ManBungalow]

Numbers prove everything....

...Except the things that have been proven to be unprovable...

Err... but.. well... umm... i... - pffft whatever.

Rocket.

Statisticians have concluded that you can prove anything with numbers...

[xelabale]

Prove it

[sailorseal]

There are Lies, Damn Lies and then there are statistics

[oVo]

Prove it

This morning I proved that 12 attacking 18 when you are the 12
means you get royally buggered.