[GO] No Dice Games

[BaldAdonis]

Based on your low post count I'm going to assume that you don't check the forums a whole lot.

I've seen more threads about dice then on any other subject even kind-of sort-of maybe relevant to CC.

(Pssst... I think that's his point)

[insomniacdude]

Based on your low post count I'm going to assume that you don't check the forums a whole lot.

I've seen more threads about dice then on any other subject even kind-of sort-of maybe relevant to CC.

(Pssst... I think that's his point)

Shush you.

[BaldAdonis]

Based on your low post count I'm going to assume that you don't check the forums a whole lot.

I've seen more threads about dice then on any other subject even kind-of sort-of maybe relevant to CC.

(Pssst... I think that's his point)

Shush you.

Quick~ Edit everything so no one will know.

[MrBenn]

a simple answer: NO

the dice are the heart of the game, it wouldn't be fun anymore if there wasn't a sort of risk to it, and what would you do in cases like 11 vs 10, i won a roll like this without losing any armies with you solution it would have resulted in losing all my armies. but what about the crazy attack: 20 vs 33? 5 vs 9?

I disagree, dice are not at the heart of the game, strategy is.
your examples:
11v10, that is why strategy would be more important.
20v33? 5vs9, I think the pertinant word is 'crazy'

Actually,the pertinent word is RISK!

[THE ARMY]

You are an awesome dude Fruitcake and a brilliant man, BUT i have to say no. As much as those dice have been little pieces of dog $#!T and horse $#!T and cow $#!T and poo and stupid little guys that i absolutely hate cuz it seems i get screwed so many times and aaahhhhhhh, i just hate those little things! I have to say revise it a bit, the no dice game is a thought but it would be too simple as soon as i thought about it i thought, "oh this would be a fair game, but then i said you know what no it wouldn't" it would be too simple to take over countries. It would be so easy to look at how many armies someone has on the board and map out victory, especially in an escalating game (where i got screwed by the dice so many times). It is a good idea but i think it need revising.

[JACKAZZTJM]

Give us a poll god dammit so we can run this idea into the ground i hate it dice are essential

[JACKAZZTJM]

mighty wicked?

[volfan]

How can you play Risk without dice?

[jiminski]

How can you play Risk without dice?

you can't .. even virtual ones make the difference!

[JACKAZZTJM]

How can you play Risk without dice?

You cant its a fruity idea

[Fruitcake]

yeti wrote:

Right here's a question...

If both sides lose the same amount of armies - what happens when it's 2 or 3 vs 1...

Who wins?

3 v 1 , both lose 1 so the victor is the attacker, however, at this point there is only 1 left on each territory (the attacking territory and territory just taken)

2 v 1 would not claim the territory, it is the one impossibility as there would then be a territory with 1 army and the other with none.

[yeti_c]

yeti wrote:

Right here's a question...

If both sides lose the same amount of armies - what happens when it's 2 or 3 vs 1...

Who wins?

3 v 1 , both lose 1 so the victor is the attacker, however, at this point there is only 1 left on each territory (the attacking territory and territory just taken)

2 v 1 would not claim the territory, it is the one impossibility as there would then be a territory with 1 army and the other with none.

But for 3v1 - that would essentially (In old school money) be 2 attacks... first one would lose - second one would win?

C.

[PLAYER57832]

This would completely and fundamentally alter the game. It might be fun (maybe?) but wouldn't be Risk or even one of the CC-like spin offs.


Also, most of the bellyacking about dice is about 2 other issues. 1. we tend to remember bad outcomes more than good ones (why? because, of course we all "should" win -- so a win just confirms our belief, but failures challange them) 2. it is easier to blame "dice" than to admit that our strategy (gasp) might not be the best. 3. It is easier to dismiss outcomes we don't like than to understand them. You could have a string of 50 losses,all based strictly on luck, but that doesn't mean the dice are fixed, it means you were the unlucky recipient of a random oddity.


If there is a real issue, the dice ad hoc group should find it and fix it. Taking out dice just isn't the answer.

[reckedracing]

whats the harm in adding it as an option?
i'd try it to see what its about

[Fruitcake]

I seem to have touched a nerve with some, but please remember, this is a suggestion to have an option, not a compulsory game.

I am not advocating, and never would, that those players who want to play with dice cannot do so. To stop someone doing what they want would be a most negative approach....wouldn't it?

I know of many people who play the board game without dice. It requires thought, planning and most of all strategy. Some play with cards, others don’t. Surely taking cards out of the game is reducing the element of luck…isn’t it?

Yes this might be considered ‘chess like’ by many, maybe there is the issue, I have always enjoyed chess and play it more than any other game. Games that require deep thought and use of the mind in planning and seeing things almost in a 3 dimensional way have always attracted me.

What I am saying is why stop those who would enjoy turning to a more strategic game and take out more of the element of luck.

I am certain there would be vociferous camps on both sides, some players I know regard this game with dice as nothing more than childs play, others say that the uncertainty of the dice adds a frisson of excitement. I am happy either way.

Returning to the 3v1 attack. Yes, this is an automatic takeover of the territory. The equation is always the attacker must have at least 2 more armies that the defender.

Taking this further. Suppose you had 3 territories (4, 4, 6) surrounding a single territory of 9. you attack with the first, taking 3 (leaving your single), you then attack with the second taking another 3 (again leaving a single on your territory) you are now left with an attacking territory of 6 (5 attackers) facing 3. You then both lose 3, the defender is taken, you have 1 on each territory.

[PLAYER57832]

The basic issue isn't so much if this would be a fun option or not, it is whether this is a RISK option or if it is such a divergence as to be an entirely different game.


I, and it seems, a number of other folks, just don't think it qualifies as a RISK variation. I love and play Chess, and many, many other games, but I don't confuse them with Risk.

If CC expands to other game types .. then, sure. But for now, my opinion is that it just doesn't fit. Sorry.

[Fruitcake]

I, and it seems, a number of other folks, just don't think it qualifies as a RISK variation.

Quite right too. That is the great thing, but it seems others agree with my thoughts.

[owenshooter]

ok.. i voted on the poll.. whew... and yeah, i think it is a GREAT IDEA! i mean, the first Risk game i got, was for christmas when i was 10... they screwed up at the factory and forgot to put the dice in it... imagine my shock and dismay when i played risk at a friends house many years later, and actually had to roll the dice to decide the outcome of the battles instead of bartering with my brothers to determine who won the battle... if one of the options on this "no dice game" is, "do the dishes tonight" for a battle victory, then i'm in...-0

[happy2seeyou]

If there is no dice in the game, who is David_Wain and Nephilim going to blame when they lose to me AGAIN??

[owenshooter]

If there is no dice in the game, who is David_Wain and Nephilim going to blame when they lose to me AGAIN??

OH SNAP!!! (notice how i translated that so you could understand it, happy2? ha!!!)

[David_Wain]

We have to blame something when we obviously get totally outplayed every time

[ugabug]

Well i like this idea really thought out.

[zimmah]

it's just an option, so who not vote for it?

not that i would play it a lot anyways, but others might like it, and it would not hurt you to vote for it, so why not?

and who cares it is more like chess instead of more like risk, does it matter? not really, since you don't HAVE to play it, it's just an option

would you vote against a new map from DiM for example, because they are not like the 'original risk' and you don't like the 'futuristic gameplay' or you just don't feel like playing some kind of variation?

most likely not, so who vote against this?

i'm not saying i want no dice games, but i just think if someone wants them as an option, WHY NOT?

[sfhbballnut]

don't reallly see the point or like the idea at all

[cicero]

Fruitcake and supporters of the idea ...

It doesn't seem well thought out ... You say that 'attacker and defender lose the same amount of armies'.

So where the attacker has at least, 2 armies more than the defender this makes a successful attack possible.

eg 5 v 2 becomes -> 3 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 2 in conquered territory.
eg 4 v 2 becomes -> 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory.

But what about where the attacker has only 1 army more than the defender?

eg 3 v 2 becomes -> 1 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 0 in conquered territory ???
Of course 4 v 3, 5 v 4, 6 v 5 etc all amount to the same problem.

I'll assume that this is the extra, as yet unwritten rule, that attackers must have 2 armies more than defenders to win.

Another thing which doesn't seem to be clarifed in the post is this:

If I have 8 v 6 can I just 'attack with 2' to make it 6 v 4? Or do I have to 'attack with 6' to make it 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory?

Not sure why I would want to do this, but could I ?

Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.

I would suspect that, given the motivation of the game type existing [ ], it wouldn't be long before someone wrote a program to direct their moves.

Cicero