Give better advance options for huge stack games

[Donelladan]

I get 13,912,782 results for finished games on the game finder
I get 178,656 results for escalating, trench finished games.
I get 113,473 results for escalating, fog trench finished games.

Looks like Owen might have been a couple of decimal points out, but not as far of the mark as Papa believes. We ARE talking about a minority here.

That is not accurate at all.
Trench was created several years after CC started.
You should only compare number of trench games with total number of games after the creation of the trench rule.

Trench is not part of the board game.

I have played the board game with the trench rule. It was in the optional rule of the instruction book.
But anyway I think it is pretty irrelevant, fog isn't part of the board game either for example.

[Metsfanmax]

Does anyone know why CC decided to change the original rules of the game and create this HUGE bonus situation?

The rule change was done because of stacking situations where very large armies were created that far outsized the value of the escalating card cashes. You could easily get to a point where the card cashes no longer mattered, because the troop counts were growing too fast. The exponential increase in the bonus size, rather than the additive increase, ensures that the card set bonuses remain relevant throughout the game, that is, that they truly escalate.

This was never a problem in the original board game because it was virtually impossible in practice to stack up to the point where the escalating bonuses stopped mattering. I don't think I ever played an over-the-board Risk game where the cash bonuses were larger than 100 troops.

[Dukasaur]

Another option is to go back to the original rule in the Risk game that CC was originally designed to copy.

In those Escalating games the sets were worth 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 and “after the sixth set has been traded in, each additional set is worth 5 more armies”.

The game I am stuck in is now up to set 251. Someone at CC decided that the bonus should increase the increase by 5 more each set after the 23rd set. Like I said this game is now up to set number 251 and that one is scheduled to be 131,770 troops, 252 will increase by 1,150 troops so the set will be worth 132,920, 253 will increase by 1,155 to 134,075, and so forth!

The problem is not caused by the traditional escalating trench idea of the original game rules, it is caused because someone decided to change the original rule of the Risk escalating game.

Instead of blocking the entire concept of escalating trench that is a part of the original game CC was designed after, if you want to do something, why not go back to the original rules of the game of Risk?

Does anyone know why CC decided to change the original rules of the game and create this HUGE bonus situation?

Because the original escalating progression was designed for the old maps with their tiny bonuses. On the Classic map, if you're collecting a bonus of 4, and you cash a set for 25, that set is a game changer. However, if you're playing a map like, for instance, King's Court II, and you are collecting something like 200 troops per turn between deploys and autodeploys, cashing a set for 25 just makes no difference at all.

The old escalating system did a good job of preventing deadlocks on the old maps, but it was totally ineffective at preventing deadlocks on the larger maps that people play nowadays.

[jmyork82]

how about you just stop stacking and actually play the game? stackers represent less than .0001% of CC players... not worth programming this for the very few... the black jesus has shot this duck out of the water...-Jésus noir

Not true, you just dont play any games that get to that level. There are plenty of occurrences where large stacks occur. I think if you add the option where you can type your number, that would be an easy fix. Or like Duka was saying before, its an easy fix.

[owenshooter]

how about you just stop stacking and actually play the game? stackers represent less than .0001% of CC players... not worth programming this for the very few... the black jesus has shot this duck out of the water...-Jésus noir

Not true, you just dont play any games that get to that level. There are plenty of occurrences where large stacks occur. I think if you add the option where you can type your number, that would be an easy fix. Or like Duka was saying before, its an easy fix.

suggested YEARS AGO and it was deemed too difficult to do. tell you what, send them the coding, so they can insert it and we'll get this option that you want. easy peasy... resolved... the black jesus has now dressed the duck for cooking...-Jésus noir

[jmyork82]

how about you just stop stacking and actually play the game? stackers represent less than .0001% of CC players... not worth programming this for the very few... the black jesus has shot this duck out of the water...-Jésus noir


Not true, you just dont play any games that get to that level. There are plenty of occurrences where large stacks occur. I think if you add the option where you can type your number, that would be an easy fix. Or like Duka was saying before, its an easy fix.

suggested YEARS AGO and it was deemed too difficult to do. tell you what, send them the coding, so they can insert it and we'll get this option that you want. easy peasy... resolved... the black jesus has now dressed the duck for cooking...-Jésus noir

what was already suggested, you cooking duck? Should I bring the wine? Wait it seems you have that covered too

[PapaGeek]

After reading all of these posts, I realize that there is a very simple solution to this problem.

Do nothing to the playing board or any of the other screens, do not add any new fields or boxes! These changes would indeed take a lot of programming.

The suggestion was made to change the create a new game screen so that if trench was checked, don’t let them check escalating, and if escalating was checked, don’t let them check trench. I can see were this would be a considerable change to the page display software and also the logic software behind the create a game page.

Simply change the internal software that determines the size of the escalating bonus. It is probably keeping a next bonus index, next bonus is 1,2,3,4,5… and either uses a small loop of software to calculate that bonus amount of has an internal list of bonus amounts.

Keep the next bonus index the same and then use a simple if statement to see if you are in a trench escalating game. If you are, add a second counting loop or add a second list that continue to increase the size of the bonus by 5, not the current …5,5,5…10,15,20,…1150,1155,1160…

If this simple internal patch was done, my current feudal epic escalating trench game, starting with 6 players, now down to 3 at round 190, would have its next bonus at 1,270 instead of 138,745. This would have eliminated the HUGE stacks and the game would probably be over by now.

We all want to win the game, when this huge bonus situation happens, if player A attacks player B, that insures that player C wins. So, hold back and wait for the other two players to start killing each other!

[owenshooter]

Point is: why delete features that a few people enjoy, Owen said that less that .0001% of the players enjoy these games, not sure where he got his stats, I know i was never surveyed! why not continue to improve the game instead of destroying it bit by bit.

One possible argument for this is that these decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Time spent supporting escalating trench is time not spent supporting some other, more widely used game mode. So by removing things that aren't played much, we can actually make the other things better.

great point... think of the time that was spent creating that setting... then increasing the cash amounts... and now, you want MORE TIME spent fixing a setting that is just a BAD SETTING and that should be eliminated... there is no solution to the problems this setting causes... the only solution, which many of us have already figured out, is to not play the setting!!! it is that simple, it is that complex... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

[Donelladan]

great point... think of the time that was spent creating that setting... then increasing the cash amounts... and now, you want MORE TIME spent fixing a setting that is just a BAD SETTING and that should be eliminated... there is no solution to the problems this setting causes... the only solution, which many of us have already figured out, is to not play the setting!!! it is that simple, it is that complex... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

You are wrong.
There is other solution than not playing those settings. The solution PapaGeek just gave it. We could revert escalating spoils to the way there were before for trench game. At the time escalating trench wasn't a problem at all.

Another solution would be to force this game to have a round limit btw. Less good but could be nice.

[owenshooter]

great point... think of the time that was spent creating that setting... then increasing the cash amounts... and now, you want MORE TIME spent fixing a setting that is just a BAD SETTING and that should be eliminated... there is no solution to the problems this setting causes... the only solution, which many of us have already figured out, is to not play the setting!!! it is that simple, it is that complex... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

You are wrong.
There is other solution than not playing those settings. The solution PapaGeek just gave it. We could revert escalating spoils to the way there were before for trench game. At the time escalating trench wasn't a problem at all.

Another solution would be to force this game to have a round limit btw. Less good but could be nice.

but, everyone begged for the change to be made, to resolve the situations that the prior cash amounts created. so, let me get this straight, the solution that was begged for and implemented, which didn't work, you now want them to go back to the prior situation that caused you to beg for the change? huh?!! again, less than .0001% of CC users play this f'd up setting. no need to waste further time on it. you choose to play a setting that does not work, so be it. the site should make it a setting/combo that is not possible to play. far too much trouble. i can not recall any other niche group of players requiring so much hand holding and coddling. how many coding changes do you now want on top of the ones you requested and received?!!! this setting, this .0001% of users is not worth the time or effort on BW's part... good luck with this...-Bj

[Donelladan]

great point... think of the time that was spent creating that setting... then increasing the cash amounts... and now, you want MORE TIME spent fixing a setting that is just a BAD SETTING and that should be eliminated... there is no solution to the problems this setting causes... the only solution, which many of us have already figured out, is to not play the setting!!! it is that simple, it is that complex... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

You are wrong.
There is other solution than not playing those settings. The solution PapaGeek just gave it. We could revert escalating spoils to the way there were before for trench game. At the time escalating trench wasn't a problem at all.

Another solution would be to force this game to have a round limit btw. Less good but could be nice.

but, everyone begged for the change to be made, to resolve the situations that the prior cash amounts created. so, let me get this straight, the solution that was begged for and implemented, which didn't work, you now want them to go back to the prior situation that caused you to beg for the change? huh?!! again, less than .0001% of CC users play this f'd up setting. no need to waste further time on it. you choose to play a setting that does not work, so be it. the site should make it a setting/combo that is not possible to play. far too much trouble. i can not recall any other niche group of players requiring so much hand holding and coddling. how many coding changes do you now want on top of the ones you requested and received?!!! this setting, this .0001% of users is not worth the time or effort on BW's part... good luck with this...-Bj

The change from the old escalating increment system to the new escalating increment system was NOT made for trench escalating players.
The trench escalating settings worked quite well until this change happened.
The change was made to unblock stalemate in non-trench escalating game, and it worked perfectly for that, but it did break the trench escalating setting.

[PapaGeek]

What about the compromise I just posted? Go back to the old escalating counts, but only in if it is an escalating trench game. No change to any boards, just an internal change to the logic. This would also require a small note on the Game Options page under Spoils to let players know that the exception exists.

[Gilligan]

Yeah, this. I joined one that I'm regretting and cashes just passed 20k. Not because we're stacking, because it's a damn big map and I honestly didn't know they changed the Escalating value from value's of 5 to whatever it is now.

But I honestly don't think it's worth the effort. In 6/7 years being here, this is the first game I've ever had this problem in. (Probably because I despise Trench)

Yeah they changed the increase after 100. It's awesome for escalating non trench game, they can never go to stalemate now. I really like it personally.
But it obviously fucked up the escalating trench setting. I love trench myself, but I stopped playing escalating trench after the change.

Concerning this suggestion, maybe you are right, maybe it is not worth the effort. But I think that if CC is going to offer those settings, it should make them work properly.

Even before the change, escalating trench was awful because the two strategies are polar opposites of each other to begin with

[Donelladan]

Even before the change, escalating trench was awful because the two strategies are polar opposites of each other to begin with

I disagree and some other people, probably the OP as well to start, also disagree.
I think it is a subjectiv statement. Like for example owenshooter who dislike all trench game whatever the spoils.
I believe escalating trench game have a strategy of their own and can be very interesting - until the change in escalating spoils which destroyed the setting combination ( for me).

[owenshooter]

I think it is a subjectiv statement. Like for example owenshooter who dislike all trench game whatever the spoils.

absolutely false statement. i have never stated it. i have never posted it. do i think it has ruined clan wars and contributed to the decline of the site? absolutely. but i do not dislike trench, whatever spoils. i play mostly dubs/no spoils/chained. when i complete my turns, i rarely move troops with my fortification. thus, i essentially play a form of trench... please don't put words into my mouth that i have never said.-Bj

[PapaGeek]

Even before the change, escalating trench was awful because the two strategies are polar opposites of each other to begin with

I disagree and some other people, probably the OP as well to start, also disagree.
I think it is a subjectiv statement. Like for example owenshooter who dislike all trench game whatever the spoils.
I believe escalating trench game have a strategy of their own and can be very interesting - until the change in escalating spoils which destroyed the setting combination ( for me).

Again, why not leave the current trench counting scheme the way it is, except for escalating trench games where you go back to the original style of counting spoils.

Donelladan, this change would un-destroy the the combination and make them interesting again.

The only screen change necessary to do this would in "The Game" / "Game Options" / "Spoils", where a simple note has to be made to tell people the rules for escalating spoils. Everything else would be in internal coding which is far better than my original post of adding + signs to the drop downs or an extra box. Changing the spoils logic for escalating trench games internally would completely eliminate the huge stack situation in those games with only minor internal software changes.

owenshooter: your dislike of trench is a personal matter, that is why there are multiple options for creating and searching for games.

PS: Mar 27: To make this easier to code; what I am talking about here to revert back to the old way of counting spoils. Since the code for doing that was already implemented, and then changed for faster growth of spoil sizes at a later date, I am certain that the developers of CC have a complete record of all changes, a full backup of the code for release 1, another full back up for release 2, and so forth.

That means the the code necessary to make this change is already written except for the one if statement that decides to run code set A or code set B based on if this is a trench escalating game.

[jmyork82]

I like escalating trench. It is definitely a different type of strategy but it can be won. You just cant be afraid to hit the attack button. Lots of players are afraid to hit the attack button.

[PapaGeek]

I like escalating trench. It is definitely a different type of strategy but it can be won. You just cant be afraid to hit the attack button. Lots of players are afraid to hit the attack button.

It is not a matter of being afraid to attack. It is the matter of being afraid to advance a huge stack against your enemy’s huge stack.

And once one of these game moves to round 200 and each player has over 2 million troops. It becomes the issue that if player A starts attacking player B, player C will usually win the game. If player A starts attacking both B and C, he will definitely lose.

The other issue is the changing dice odds with huge stacks. Way back when, I created an Excel spreadsheet to define the odds for 3 vs 2 attacks, here are the results I got.



I used the Excel formula =INT(RAND()*6)+1 to create the random dice rolls, then sorted the rolls so I could compare largest vs largest and second vs second to see how much each player would win on each roll. I then ran the odds for 10, 100, and 1000 rolls of 3 vs 2 to create the total wins and losses and the percentages. I then ran each setting 50 times to get an average of the averages.

The bottom 3 lines of the table show how the odds for say 13 attacking 12 where there will be only 10 3 vs 2 rolls are all over the place. You might win 80% or you might only win 30%. The odds get more consistent at 100 rolls and even more consistent at 1000.


Bottom line here is what happens with HUGE stacks. The attacker will take 54 troops for every 46 they lose. If I advance 100,000 troops against my opponents 95,000 troop position, he then attacks me the next round, after about 92,600 auto 3 vs 2 attacks, my entire 100,000 troop stack will be gone and he will have about 9,800 remaining on his region after advancing 1 to mine. You lose a lot more troops as the aggressor than those lost by the defender.

Let me say that another way: 2 troops are lost every 3 vs 2 attack, 92,600 attacks results in 185,200 troops being lost, 54% of 185,200 troops is 100,008 which kills my 100,000 stack while 46% of 185,200 troops is 85,192 which does not kill his 95,000!

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

How would your suggestion remove this deadlock situation?

[PapaGeek]

How would your suggestion remove this deadlock situation?

My original suggestion that started this thread was not the proper solution to the problem, but it did create some interesting replies with alternate solutions.

When I combined the alternate suggested solutions, to me the best way to avoid a lot of screen changes while avoiding the HUGE stacks that create this problem, was to basically undo the rapidly growing bonuses that are a problem in trench games, but only for escalating trench games. This could be achieved with no changes to any of the screens, except the one that defines what escalating does. All of the real changes would be internal where the code that existed before the super growth code was implemented would be brought back with a simple IF statement, if this is a trench game, use the old escalating code, if not trench, use the new code.

My escalating trench game is in round 200, the next set = 149,545 growing by 1220+ each set vs 1,315 growing by 5 each set. The sets are now more than 100 times as large as the old rules. The HUGE stacks would not exist under the old rules.

To attack your opponents stack when he might add another 150,000 troops to it if he has a set is totally different than attacking a stack if he might add 1,300 troops.

Question: Should I be creating a new thread with the modified suggested solution, and referencing this thread as where the logic came from. Or could the ops take the modified, much easier to implement, suggestion from this thread?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

To attack your opponents stack when he might add another 150,000 troops to it if he has a set is totally different than attacking a stack if he might add 1,300 troops.

But the stacks are also smaller with your proposed change.

Youve changed the scale of the problem not the problem itself.

[Metsfanmax]

Question: Should I be creating a new thread with the modified suggested solution, and referencing this thread as where the logic came from. Or could the ops take the modified, much easier to implement, suggestion from this thread?

You are welcome to post a new thread, but the limitation here is not the difficulty (or lack thereof) of implementation, but rather the reluctance to have different versions of escalating for different game modes.

[owenshooter]

Question: Should I be creating a new thread with the modified suggested solution, and referencing this thread as where the logic came from. Or could the ops take the modified, much easier to implement, suggestion from this thread?

You are welcome to post a new thread, but the limitation here is not the difficulty (or lack thereof) of implementation, but rather the reluctance to have different versions of escalating for different game modes.

yes.. again... .0001% of players on the site don't really merit more programming for a type of game that should have never been able to be played, given the issues with the settings... the fact that the "fix" for the settings massive issue has not resolved the issue, is proof enough for me... don't waste time fixing what was solidly broken from the beginning... the black jesus has spoken...-Bj

[Donelladan]

the fact that the "fix" for the settings massive issue has not resolved the issue, is proof enough for me... -Bj

Would you please enlight us and let us know what was that "fix" ?

I have definitely no idea what you are talking about.

[PapaGeek]

There is a third solution! On the Start Games screen, if trench and escalating are both checked, if the Round Limit radio button is currently “none” change it to “100 Rounds” and disable the “none” button. Let the user check 20, 30, 50, or 100, but if the user tries to check none, light up the 100 circle.

This could be a rather simple change, a subroutine that asks if trench, escalating, and none are all checked, change the Round Limit to 100. Call the subroutine every time the either Spoils, Trench, or Round Limit is changed.

Option 2 is to do that test only when Create is hit and pop up a “you can’t do that” menu if all three options are asked for.