[GO] No Dice Games

[the.killing.44]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095&hilit=+dice+games

[jammyjames]

yeah... incorporate this idea. as it would be an optional extra method of gameplay, its not affecting anoyone that does not want to play it!!!

[Beckytheblondie]

No autoasalt and random each dice separately!!! Not all dice at once like now!!!

Are you kidding? You made the rank of General?

[pmchugh]

yeah... incorporate this idea. as it would be an optional extra method of gameplay, its not affecting anoyone that does not want to play it!!!

no point adiing somethin no one wants

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[knubbel]

i want this implemented!!!!

[Fruitcake]

Funny that nearly two years after I started this thread it still garners responses.

I still believe it would be a good option, and the original poll showed that the majority thought so as well.

[jammyjames]

Funny that nearly two years after I started this thread it still garners responses.

I still believe it would be a good option, and the original poll showed that the majority thought so as well.

yeah i made a thread an not got directed to yours... so i bumped your up

great idea, and it should definately get implemented

[leonidusofsparta]

how about no dice as an option-you simply lose 1 for 1

[kampo]

what happens 2v2 ?

[Fuzzylogic99]

its a interesting idea I just dont think mechanically it would work.There too many bugsand issues .I also think this has been brought up several times b4 and rejected for the same reasons

[BrutalBob]

That would wipe out about half the forum complaints.

Would be interesting for a "look" but it possibly wouldnt work well in a two player game as the first one to get a bonus of any type would win.

[jammyjames]

look around to find previous posts before you make your own..

link to the original topic:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095

[jimg7777]

How about a NO DICE option ? Let’s just eliminate the luck (good and bad) of the Dice so the best Strategists are more likely to WIN.

Proposed modified rules:

1. Attacking territory MUST have at least 2 more armies than defender, or can't attack.

2. Attacker always wins (makes sense - they have the larger force) but in doing so,
2A. Attacker loses armies equal to what defender had (let's call that #, D). It would be like having VERY
STEADY dice spins i.e for series of 3vs2 attacks it's like it went - split, win2, lose2, split, lose2, win2...
or split, split, split...)
OR 2B. Attacker loses D-1 or D-10% to give attacker some advantage (as current dice odds do.)
OR 2C. Attacker loses D if they had 2 more armies than Defender, D-1 if they had 4 more armies, D-2 if they
had 6 more armies... to create advantage for more overwhelming attacks - more realistic.
OR 2D. Attacker loses # of armies based on what’s most probable using actual Dice Odds…

2E. May need some special processing so that A3vsD1 spins don’t always reward Attacker with win. Maybe a counter so that when you attack 3vs1, you win 1, lose 1, win 1, win 1, lose 1, win 1,… to maintain 2/3 win advantage for Attacker, which is close to a actual dice odds…

Pros: 1- Attacking is pure SKILL. Everyone can accurately predict an entire campaign. Much more likely that
best strategist will win the game.
2 - No more complaints about the dice. (OK they must be random - but weirdly STREAKY at times)

Cons: 1 - Evenly matched players likely to stalemate.
Maybe put a limit on # of rounds and then at that point the most terrs wins with most armies as
tie-breaker.
2 – Some may think it’s a less robust game since no "character-building" by working to overcome bad
dice. But that’s why it’d be an OPTION (like nuclear or fog of war.)

Still lots of luck involved:
1. With initial territory placement.
2. With the timing of spoils, and whether you own spoil territories.

[Thomassaurus]

I know the dies are random but it does get a little annoying sometimes. How about if you could choose not to have dies in a game,
so as long as long as you had more troops you know you would win, it would just take the same amount from you as it takes from them.
Say you attack 8 to 4 they loose 4 you loose 4 you attack 10 to 3 they loose 3 you loose 3.
Just an idea.

[Fuzzylogic99]

been suggested and rejected several times

[Thomassaurus]

ok

[Fruitcake]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095&hilit=fruitcake

Not rejected, just allowed to wither on the vine.

[yeti_c]

been suggested and rejected several times

Never been rejected.

C.

[billy07]

I know the dies are random but it does get a little annoying sometimes. How about if you could choose not to have dies in a game,
so as long as long as you had more troops you know you would win, it would just take the same amount from you as it takes from them.
Say you attack 8 to 4 they loose 4 you loose 4 you attack 10 to 3 they loose 3 you loose 3.
Just an idea.

basically the drop would decide the winner in this instance. the forums would then be deluged with threads complaining about random drops and how the 'even' dice didn't give them a chance

[AAFitz]

I know the dies are random but it does get a little annoying sometimes. How about if you could choose not to have dies in a game,
so as long as long as you had more troops you know you would win, it would just take the same amount from you as it takes from them.
Say you attack 8 to 4 they loose 4 you loose 4 you attack 10 to 3 they loose 3 you loose 3.
Just an idea.

basically the drop would decide the winner in this instance. the forums would then be deluged with threads complaining about random drops and how the 'even' dice didn't give them a chance

Regretfully, I am forced to agree with you 100%, except the drop wouldnt even matter...only going first would.

The only way to win a game going second in a game, is because of the dice typically. Otherwise, the other player would always be ahead in army count.

And, you would make every 3v3 attack on round one, knocking every army they had down to 1, and taking at least 3 spots from them with 3 deploy, 4 with 4 deploy, 5 with 5 deploy, 6 with 6 deploy, 7 with 7 deploy....12 with 12 deploy...and on their turn, they would be left with 3 to deploy, and little or no 3's to place them on.

It would work without fail. You make a 4, attack a 3 and win, every time. This may seem like a neat idea, but clearly, the dice were included for a reason.

You could devise a way to make this work, but the drop would decide most games, and it would require one attack per round only. Now, pick that setting on the hive. Let me know how it turns out for ya.

[AAFitz]

been suggested and rejected several times

Never been rejected.

C.

Can never be implemented.

that is, without a total reworking of how the game works, with the one exception of speed freestyle, which theoretically gives no advantage to going first.

On that setting alone, it could truly be a complete game of skill, discounting any unlucky/lucky drops. On any sequenial game, player 1 wins, nearly uncontested on 1v1.

[billy07]

I know the dies are random but it does get a little annoying sometimes. How about if you could choose not to have dies in a game,
so as long as long as you had more troops you know you would win, it would just take the same amount from you as it takes from them.
Say you attack 8 to 4 they loose 4 you loose 4 you attack 10 to 3 they loose 3 you loose 3.
Just an idea.

basically the drop would decide the winner in this instance. the forums would then be deluged with threads complaining about random drops and how the 'even' dice didn't give them a chance

Regretfully, I am forced to agree with you 100%, except the drop wouldnt even matter...only going first would.

The only way to win a game going second in a game, is because of the dice typically. Otherwise, the other player would always be ahead in army count.

And, you would make every 3v3 attack on round one, knocking every army they had down to 1, and taking at least 3 spots from them with 3 deploy, 4 with 4 deploy, 5 with 5 deploy, 6 with 6 deploy, 7 with 7 deploy....12 with 12 deploy...and on their turn, they would be left with 3 to deploy, and little or no 3's to place them on.

It would work without fail. You make a 4, attack a 3 and win, every time. This may seem like a neat idea, but clearly, the dice were included for a reason.

You could devise a way to make this work, but the drop would decide most games, and it would require one attack per round only. Now, pick that setting on the hive. Let me know how it turns out for ya.

happily, i am forced to disagree with you 100%. you didn't work out your maths properly. a 4 could not take a 3 as it would lose 3 and not have 1 to carry over. a 6 could only take 1 country as it would become a 2 after it has enterted a new country.

good forting would be a way to win, but like you said, if the first person made everything 1's it becomes a pointless game.

[AAFitz]

I know the dies are random but it does get a little annoying sometimes. How about if you could choose not to have dies in a game,
so as long as long as you had more troops you know you would win, it would just take the same amount from you as it takes from them.
Say you attack 8 to 4 they loose 4 you loose 4 you attack 10 to 3 they loose 3 you loose 3.
Just an idea.

basically the drop would decide the winner in this instance. the forums would then be deluged with threads complaining about random drops and how the 'even' dice didn't give them a chance

Regretfully, I am forced to agree with you 100%, except the drop wouldnt even matter...only going first would.

The only way to win a game going second in a game, is because of the dice typically. Otherwise, the other player would always be ahead in army count.



And, you would make every 3v3 attack on round one, knocking every army they had down to 1, and taking at least 3 spots from them with 3 deploy, 4 with 4 deploy, 5 with 5 deploy, 6 with 6 deploy, 7 with 7 deploy....12 with 12 deploy...and on their turn, they would be left with 3 to deploy, and little or no 3's to place them on.

It would work without fail. You make a 4, attack a 3 and win, every time. This may seem like a neat idea, but clearly, the dice were included for a reason.

You could devise a way to make this work, but the drop would decide most games, and it would require one attack per round only. Now, pick that setting on the hive. Let me know how it turns out for ya.

happily, i am forced to disagree with you 100%. you didn't work out your maths properly. a 4 could not take a 3 as it would lose 3 and not have 1 to carry over. a 6 could only take 1 country as it would become a 2 after it has enterted a new country.

good forting would be a way to win, but like you said, if the first person made everything 1's it becomes a pointless game.

Your umm... math is wrong....You didnt nearly disagree with me 100%...

i am forced to disagree with you 100%.......but like you said, if the first person made everything 1's it becomes a pointless

The math is wrong though. you would need 5 deploys to kill the 3s, not 4's, but for initial drops of many armies the result would be exactly the same. at 12 armies, youd take 6 spots each time, and leave ones nearly everywhere else.

No doubt, a system of limiting attacks, and forting could very well make the game playable, but the game of chess already exists, so you might as well just play that, instead of configuring a new one.

For fun though, it would be fun to see a game made this way. Dice would perhaps still be needed, but instead of deciding the number of kills, perhaps they could decide the number of attacks.

All pointless conjecture though. Its just not even the same game. and would essentially require an entirely new game engine.

I will admit, Id love to give it a shot, and on speed freestyle, with no one going first or second. It would no doubt be an interesting game...though, it could also turn into a game of tic tac toe, theoretically, for an unlimited number of rounds.

the only winning move...is not to play.

[yeti_c]

Whilst I agree that it wouldn't be the best game type for 2 players...

It would work for all other player levels.

C.