Pretty obvious, I guess. An additional die to the defender instead of the attacker.
It would make for some serious changes of tactics and build games.
If it's been mentioned before, I apologize for bringing it up again but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for with the search option, even when I know it already exists
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Defenders get an advantage: with equal rolls defender wins.
Nice table:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(game ... babilities
The table proves to show just how even the rolls are. The attacker should get an advantage (however small) though. The original risk was meant to be large scale global warfare. One unit is an "army" after all. In real life terms, on such a large scale, what is a small concrete bunker going to do when hit by bombs/artillery?
Useless idea IMO. There would be no incentive for anyone to attack ever. The clearly dominant strategy would be to just deploy (evenly over all owned territs) and then wait for your opponents to either deadbeat or suicide. Would make for themost boring games of all time.
Thezzaruz wrote:Useless idea IMO. There would be no incentive for anyone to attack ever. The clearly dominant strategy would be to just deploy (evenly over all owned territs) and then wait for your opponents to either deadbeat or suicide. Would make for themost boring games of all time.
Well, escalating games would still encourage attacking because eventually you get so many troops for your cards (and attacking a single man would be the same odds as it is now).
Just the same, I don't think this is a change many people would appreciate. It is not unique enough to be a new game type, and not necessary to switch all the dice to this direction. It WOULD be interesting to test it out, just to see if the best players are able to adapt to the different odds, but otherwise I don't see much good of more dice.
sully800 wrote:
Well, escalating games would still encourage attacking because eventually you get so many troops for your cards (and attacking a single man would be the same odds as it is now).
No it wouldn't. Consider the shift in odds (in favor of the attacker) from a 2v2 battle to a 3v2 battle. This suggestion would mean a similar shift in odds from a 2v2 battle, but in favor of the defender. There simply wouldn't be any realistic chance of winning enough battles to gain enough cards to ever make up for the losses you would incur when trying to win those cards.
sully800 wrote:
Well, escalating games would still encourage attacking because eventually you get so many troops for your cards (and attacking a single man would be the same odds as it is now).
No it wouldn't. Consider the shift in odds (in favor of the attacker) from a 2v2 battle to a 3v2 battle. This suggestion would mean a similar shift in odds from a 2v2 battle, but in favor of the defender. There simply wouldn't be any realistic chance of winning enough battles to gain enough cards to ever make up for the losses you would incur when trying to win those cards.
The defender would only have the possibility of rolling an additional die if he had 3 people right? With 2 men he can only roll two dice, and with one man he can only roll one die. At least I thought that was what the suggestion was going for...
sully800 wrote:
The defender would only have the possibility of rolling an additional die if he had 3 people right?
Well of course. but seeing as every territ starts with 3 armies and the winning strategy would be to just deploy you would almost always attack v 3 defending dice. And you would be doing that attacking at terrible odds.
sully800 wrote:
The defender would only have the possibility of rolling an additional die if he had 3 people right?
Well of course. but seeing as every territ starts with 3 armies and the winning strategy would be to just deploy you would almost always attack v 3 defending dice. And you would be doing that attacking at terrible odds.
3v3 battles, max 3 losses per roll
Att 3 - 0 Def ~14%
Att 2 - 1 Def ~22%
Att 1 - 2 Def ~26%
Att 0 - 3 Def ~38%
3v3 battles, max 2 losses per roll
Att 2 - 0 Def ~23%
Att 1 - 1 Def ~29%
Att 0 - 2 Def ~48%
Thezzaruz wrote:Ahh but the OP said "instead". So the "normal" battle would be a 2v3 one and not the ones you posted.
e_i_pi wrote:
Only RADAGA would roll with odds like that...
He'd still expect to win every roll to probably...
Oh you are right. 2v3 would be pretty horrible attacking. 3v3, not all that bad since you could be trading for singles rather quickly. But in every case it would cause more stalemates and therefore wouldn't be too enjoyable.
If this was implemented I'd quit CC on the day. Luckily, that's a pretty far fetched scenario, since I can't see anything like this ever being pushed through.
niMic wrote:If this was implemented I'd quit CC on the day....
Really? You'd quit CC if they added an OPTION that you didn't like?
I was under the impression that you wanted to change the game system? Obviously I wouldn't quit if it was just an option. And obviously you realize that. But then again, admitting that would compromise your ability to be a dick, wouldn't it?
Well, this being a war-based game, I guess I find it interesting that you(s) would think an attacker would have an advantage against a defended position on an equal or even outnumbered playing field. Unless all defenders are supposed to be french or something.
How about the extra die goes to the player with the most armies(and it could possibly change hands in the middle of an attack)?
It would make the auto-attack a little less apealing for sure.
HapSmo19 wrote:Well, this being a war-based game, I guess I find it interesting that you(s) would think an attacker would have an advantage against a defended position on an equal or even outnumbered playing field.
And you think that the odds of 14/26/60 is a more realistic representation???
Realism aside I still think it's a useless idea as it would mean a complete breakdown of the game mechanics and the only way anyone would ever be even somewhat successful through attacking would be if they got enormously lucky.
HapSmo19 wrote:Well, this being a war-based game, I guess I find it interesting that you(s) would think an attacker would have an advantage against a defended position on an equal or even outnumbered playing field.
And you think that the odds of 14/26/60 is a more realistic representation???
Realism aside I still think it's a useless idea as it would mean a complete breakdown of the game mechanics and the only way anyone would ever be even somewhat successful through attacking would be if they got enormously lucky.
Yeah, in the end I don't think this is an option worth pursuing for CC because there is a backlog of suggestions that are much more critical. This would be interesting to test how it would change the gameplay but that can be easily done in a home game, table top version.
And also, watch the personal attacks everyone, there is no need for it here
