Option to attack with only 1 or 2 dice

[firsal901]

Concise description:
An option to use only 1 or 2 troops when attacking even if you can attack with 3 troops
this option does not include defense

Specifics/Details:
for example:
Attack _______ from _________ with __ troops

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
It may add a new layer of strategy to the game as well
as giving players more control over how they attack


I got this idea when i was playing risk the other day

[lilrvrgrl]

Yes please!

[Blinkadyblink]

When would there be an advantage in attacking with fewer than 3 dice? The only reason it's in Risk is because, for every die you attack with, you have to advance at least one army into the conquered territory. Since Conquer Club doesn't have that rule, what would be the point of this suggestion?

[greenoaks]

Concise description:
An option to use only 1 or 2 troops when attacking even if you can attack with 3 troops
this option does not include defense

Specifics/Details:
for example:
Attack _______ from _________ with __ troops

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
It may add a new layer of strategy to the game as well
as giving players more control over how they attack


I got this idea when i was playing risk the other day

i can't see any additional levels of strategy added by having this option

why would you choose to attack with 1 when the defender is using 2 ?

[firsal901]

i got this idea because in a game of risk i can attack with only 1 or 2 dice even if i have 4 units because id like to reduce the number of troops in the impending invasion of my continent.

[greenoaks]

i got this idea because in a game of risk i can attack with only 1 or 2 dice even if i have 4 units because id like to reduce the number of troops in the impending invasion of my continent.

but we do not have that rule here

as it is now i can attack with 30 and advance all 30 or 1 and any number in between

so what is the benefit of your suggestion

[skipopidid]

One advantage of this suggestion is you can attack with just 1 troop if you are not willing to loose 2..

[TheForgivenOne]

One advantage of this suggestion is you can attack with just 1 troop if you are not willing to loose 2..

I like your thinking. +1

[nebsmith]

One advantage of this suggestion is you can attack with just 1 troop if you are not willing to loose 2..

sorry this is a strange idea. attacking with 3 v 2 gives the attacker an advantage, attacking 1 v 2 gives a 3 to1 advantage to the defender. why would you ever choose to do this ?

[Rodion]

One advantage of this suggestion is you can attack with just 1 troop if you are not willing to loose 2..

sorry this is a strange idea. attacking with 3 v 2 gives the attacker an advantage, attacking 1 v 2 gives a 3 to1 advantage to the defender. why would you ever choose to do this ?

Team escalating when the cashes are big and you're setting your partner up to kill you.

[greenoaks]

One advantage of this suggestion is you can attack with just 1 troop if you are not willing to loose 2..

sorry this is a strange idea. attacking with 3 v 2 gives the attacker an advantage, attacking 1 v 2 gives a 3 to1 advantage to the defender. why would you ever choose to do this ?

Team escalating when the cashes are big and you're setting your partner up to kill you.

for that reason alone i'd say no

[skipopidid]

if the attacker only rolled 1, then the defender should only roll 1 also.
at least in my opinion.

[nebsmith]

if the attacker only rolled 1, then the defender should only roll 1 also.
at least in my opinion.

sorry you can't have the attacker deciding how many dice the defender gets to roll. I know in the boardgame the attacker can decide how many dice to use but so can the defender and I have never chosen to use 1 die to defend.

The only reason to skew the odds by defending or attacking with fewer dice - as we don't use the army advance rules of the boardgame here - is to help a team-mate. And I'm with greenoaks, thats a reason not to allow it.

[drunkmonkey]

i got this idea because in a game of risk i can attack with only 1 or 2 dice even if i have 4 units because id like to reduce the number of troops in the impending invasion of my continent.

I mean this in the kindest and most sincere way - please learn how CC works before making more suggestion threads.

[Chuuuuck]

sorry this is a strange idea. attacking with 3 v 2 gives the attacker an advantage, attacking 1 v 2 gives a 3 to1 advantage to the defender. why would you ever choose to do this ?

For this reason alone, I will agree with this suggestion. I personally will NEVER use it, but I do not mind my opponents taking advantage of it all of the time.

Please implement this immediately and maybe even give a quick speech of all of the "benefits" of using 1 or 2 dice instead of 3 such as "minimize the risk by limiting the number of armies you can lose (and giving up all odds to win)." But leave the parenthesis out.

[lilrvrgrl]

sorry this is a strange idea. attacking with 3 v 2 gives the attacker an advantage, attacking 1 v 2 gives a 3 to1 advantage to the defender. why would you ever choose to do this ?

For this reason alone, I will agree with this suggestion. I personally will NEVER use it, but I do not mind my opponents taking advantage of it all of the time.

Please implement this immediately and maybe even give a quick speech of all of the "benefits" of using 1 or 2 dice instead of 3 such as "minimize the risk by limiting the number of armies you can lose (and giving up all odds to win)." But leave the parenthesis out.

Yep!