Introduce an Attrition rule!

Kromious · Post by **Kromious** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:23 pm

I was just the victim of a most evil situation. I am sure I am not the first, but I was thinking about an option for Risk games. Why not have an attrition option that allows a player with an overwhelming force to trade 1:1 losses against a smaller force. For example I just had a situation where my 6 armies lost to 2. This is somewhat crazy to me, considering 6 armies should be able to defeat 2 armies just on odds alone. My idea which may prove to be a bad one depending on the responses to the topic is:

1: Allow a player with an overwhelming force to have an option of attrition.

Examples:
(A) A player has 6 armies Vs. 2 and instead of commencing with a normal attack the player could choose the option of attrition. This would allow the player with six armies to trade 1:1 losses against the smaller opponent.

(B) The other idea would be that the player utilizing the option of attrition losses 1 extra army for the attack. So 6 armies Vs. 2 would allow the overwhelming force to loose 3 armies to 2 and then take the territory he/she was attacking.

Just an idea, I am sure many players have been the victim of a situation in which an overwhelming force lost to a smaller force because of bad rolls. I think this would make the game a little more realistic and could be an option choice when creating a game.

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:27 pm

This Idea Has Been Rejected!
Please thoroughly read the following threads and perform a forum search before making suggestions:
Suggestions Box (Lack's 'To-Do' List)
Suggestion & Bug Report Forms

Kromious · Post by **Kromious** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:34 pm

Well since only one person has rejected it, I will still hold out hope that someone will come to their senses. This idea is worth discussing, but if the admins or whatever you guys call yourselves fear this topic being discussed then perhaps you should close this post. However its a great idea and I won't back down!

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:17 pm

Kromious wrote:Well since only one person has rejected it, I will still hold out hope that someone will come to their senses. This idea is worth discussing, but if the admins or whatever you guys call yourselves fear this topic being discussed then perhaps you should close this post. However its a great idea and I won't back down!

not just one person the person who made this site and keeps it running did!

VXZombie · Post by **VXZombie** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:20 pm

spiesr wrote:This Idea Has Been Rejected!
Please thoroughly read the following threads and perform a forum search before making suggestions:
Suggestions Box (Lack's 'To-Do' List)
Suggestion & Bug Report Forms

spiesr wrote:Please thoroughly read and complete the requirements in the following threads before continuing:
How to Make a Map
How Maps Progress Through The Foundry

Are you a mod or something?

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:37 pm

No, I just felt like telling this person that this suggestion had been rejected and pointing him to help threads...

dominationnation · Post by **dominationnation** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:22 pm

VXZombie wrote:
spiesr wrote:This Idea Has Been Rejected!
Please thoroughly read the following threads and perform a forum search before making suggestions:
Suggestions Box (Lack's 'To-Do' List)
Suggestion & Bug Report Forms

spiesr wrote:Please thoroughly read and complete the requirements in the following threads before continuing:
How to Make a Map
How Maps Progress Through The Foundry
Are you a mod or something?

no he just wants to help n00bs get accoustmed to the system we have in place here. without people like him no one would follow the system and it woulkinda pointless. If you stay here for a while you will see that tons of n00bs each day come and post the same questions and ideas over and over again thinking that its an amazing idea and it begins to get annoying.

wcaclimbing · Post by **wcaclimbing** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:30 pm

Kromious wrote:Why not have an attrition option that allows a player with an overwhelming force to trade 1:1 losses against a smaller force. For example I just had a situation where my 6 armies lost to 2. This is somewhat crazy to me, considering 6 armies should be able to defeat 2 armies just on odds alone.

awful idea. that takes out nearly all of the luck and "risk" of the game...

and, are you seriously calling 6v2 an "overwhelming" force?

thats a pretty lame force. overwhelming would have to be a few hundred at least, and then the dice win odds would kick in over time and you would win anyway....

EDIT: and 6 armies shouldnt beat 2 "on odds alone". like i said above, you would need at least around 100 armies against another similar force for the "odds" to kick in enough to really ensure a win...

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:37 pm

wcaclimbing wrote:
Kromious wrote:Why not have an attrition option that allows a player with an overwhelming force to trade 1:1 losses against a smaller force. For example I just had a situation where my 6 armies lost to 2. This is somewhat crazy to me, considering 6 armies should be able to defeat 2 armies just on odds alone.
awful idea. that takes out nearly all of the luck and "risk" of the game...

and, are you seriously calling 6v2 an "overwhelming" force?

thats a pretty lame force. overwhelming would have to be a few hundred at least, and then the dice win odds would kick in over time and you would win anyway....

EDIT: and 6 armies shouldnt beat 2 "on odds alone". like i said above, you would need at least around 100 armies against another similar force for the "odds" to kick in enough to really ensure a win...

wca is right and look at this this way, in real life tactics and stuff like that tie into battles. superior numbers can easily be defeated with smart moves. in the american revolution the american army was vastly outnumbered and under trained and under armed. yet they pulled off some successful stunts and won

so in essance, the two armies have a really good general

Mr_Adams · Post by **Mr_Adams** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:55 pm

well he was being a pansy complaining about THAT lose, but I like the idea. except maybe a 3:2 rato, same as att:def rato

Kromious · Post by **Kromious** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:22 am

6 armies VS. 2 may not being an overwhelming force but should still beat a force 33% it's size. I merely offered it as a potential option for those who wish to have it in some games. I am not suggesting it is something that every game should have. By the way, the revolution was not won by armies alone! The Americans got lucky and if not for the surrender at Saratoga the French would have never supported or believed in Americas ability to win it's independance, and without French support, America would have had a much different fight on their hands. The rolls in this game are often unrealistic and that is something that the option of attrition could fix. Just like any option in the game that can be utilized, this option could be or could not be used in game creation. My apologies if this post is in the wrong place, or if it is a topic that has already been discussed. Ungfortunately as afore mentioned, I am new to CC and am still in the process of learning this site and of course strategy.

deflagratio · Post by **deflagratio** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:29 am

Spartans and Agincourt. Nuff said. Throughout history there are instances of forces defeating armies 3 or 4 times greater than they. Your guys just happened run into the wrong the valley against the wrong guys. In a game where you don't actually play out the step by step conquest of each country you have to make is so that these rare moments of victory can shine through. Hence the random dice.

Introduce an Attrition rule!

Introduce an Attrition rule!

Rejected?

Re: Rejected?

Re: Introduce an Attrition rule!

Re: Introduce an Attrition rule!

LOL!